Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Public Expenditure

Mr. Gow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to announce any further cuts in public expenditure; and if he will make a statement about the level of public expenditure.

Mr. Younger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans for further reductions in public expenditure in the year 1977–78.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I have nothing to add to my statement of 22nd July.—[Vol. 915, c. 2010–20.]

Mr. Gow: Does not the Chancellor yet understand that until he cuts public spending the decline in sterling and the present astronomical interest rates will go on? Would it not be better to announce public spending cuts now rather than do so in much more humiliating circumstances later?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in my statement on 22nd July I announced cuts in public spending of £1,000 million—substantially larger than have been made in previous circumstances—leading to a fall in expenditure in real terms next year compared with this year. The hon. Gentleman's views would be taken more seriously if he could persuade the Leader of the Opposition not to pretend, as she did in a series of interviews last week, that cuts of £5½ billion to £6 billion, as proposed by the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, can be made without very high unemployment and intense distress to many millions of people.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of the public sector borrowing requirement is made up of the nonsensical inclusion of public sector capital investment, the results of an indefensible system which puts 1½ million people on the dole, and continuous public handouts to private


industry, including stock appreciation relief?

Mr. Healey: I have already told the House that we are making proposals which will be put to the Select Committee for dealing with the capital expenditure of the nationalised industries in the same way as it is dealt with in all other countries. On the element in the public sector borrowing requirement which is caused by excess unemployment, I have already told the House that it is between one-third and one-quarter of the total.
On the last question, I think that the overwhelming majority of Labour Members and still some Conservative Members would regard assistance by the Government to private industry as an important element in the regeneration of our economy.

Mr. Younger: If the Chancellor finds that his planned level of public expenditure next year is too heavy for this overtaxed country to bear, what action will he take then?

Mr. Healey: If I find that the public sector borrowing requirement is too heavy, I shall cut it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Apart from the damage that they do to the community, are not these cuts bound to increase the numbers of unemployed? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they are. Does the Chancellor seriously believe that, with 1½ million unemployed and vast unused industrial capacity, it is possible to absorb that number and more in export and other industries?

Mr. Healey: I am not quite clear whether my hon. Friend is referring to the cuts already made by the Government. They will increase unemployment, as I told the House in my statement on 22nd July.
As for the cuts proposed by the Opposition, which would be six times as high, they would lead to six times as much unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), in an unaccustomed flash of honesty, told the electors of Surbiton not so long ago that

public expenditure cuts would in fact lead to an increase in unemployment.

Sir G. Howe: Will the Chancellor stop misrepresenting the policy of the Conservative Party and recognise that our programme for the reduction of public expenditure is spread over some years ahead? Will he further recognise that the longer he puts off starting on that task, the worse the problems will become? Will he also recognise that it is no use now referring to the statement he made on 22nd July when the figures published the day after he spoke in the House on Monday show that the assumptions about output that he then made are now without foundation?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his difficulty in covering his present borrowing requirement shows that a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement is now essential as soon as possible, that we shall not welcome increases in taxes and that he must move towards reductions in public expenditure?

Mr. Healey: On the question of the output figures published on Monday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the CBI issued a statement yesterday saying that all its information from its constituent members suggested that the desired output would be achieved. On the question of the unemployment that would be caused by the Opposition's policies, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman endorses, as I suppose he does, a cut of £5½ billion to £6 billion in public expenditure, he must know that that will lead to massive unemployment—

Sir G. Howe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Healey: —and that the Leader of the Conservative Party, in telling Mr. Havilland on 4th October that a very small increase would be incurred, was falling far short of the standards of honesty which are expected of political leaders in this country.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the terrifyingly complacent nature of the Chancellor's remarks, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Economic Trends

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his July economic package has yet improved the situation concerning inflation, unemployment, and the value of sterling.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): The measures announced by my right hon. Friend on 22nd July relate to the financial year 1977–78. They have improved the prospect for that year and succeeding years.

Mr. Tebbit: Could there be a reply from the Treasury Bench that would more clearly underline the charges of complacence, ignorance and sloth which have been levelled against the Government than that reply? Do the Chancellor, his Financial Secretary or any of those humbugs on the Government Bench imagine that that reply will do anything to arrest a further slide in unemployment, a further increase in inflation or the increase in unemployment that is now taking place?

Mr. Barnett: I find it extremely difficult to take talk about unemployment from the hon. Gentleman or, indeed, from any Opposition Members, knowing, as they do, what their proposals would do to unemployment. The kind of bitter and twisted statements that come from the hon. Gentleman will do very little to help sterling or this country.

Mr. Speaker: For the record, let me say that it is not permitted to call anyone a humbug in this place. One may say that an argument is humbug, but not the hon. Gentleman concerned.

Mr. Tebbit: Further to that matter, Mr. Speaker, I apologise to the House and to those on the Treasury Bench for referring to them as humbugs. It is just their policy which is humbug.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effects of the cuts on the construction industry have been disastrous? Is he not aware of the NEDC report which indicates that unless something is done, when there is an upturn there will be no construction industry left for construction to go ahead? Is it not time for a great deal of rethinking of Government policy as regards the construction industry?

Mr. Barnett: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. However, I am sure he will appreciate that, whatever measures are taken to deal with our present problems, particularly the very large borrowing requirement that we still have, they are bound to have some effect on the construction industry, and particularly if he agrees with me and with the TUC that our priority must be to ensure that we pre-empt the maximum resources for manufacturing industry.

Mr. David Howell: Will the Chief Secretary say what is the Government's inflation rate target for next year now that all hope of single figures by Christmas has presumably been abandoned? Is it right that Ministers are now moving to approximately 15 per cent. as their likely estimate for inflation next year?

Mr. Barnett: Certainly, if we were working on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's proposals we would be working on the basis of something very much higher.

Mr. Gould: What hard evidence is there that the pound is undervalued to set alongside the unpleasant facts that we are continuing to run a very substantial deficit in our trade, particularly in our trade in manufactured goods with our Common Market partners, and that no one, least of all Chancellor Schmidt, seems to be buying pounds?

Mr. Barnett: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and I noted with interest the laughter of Opposition Members on the aspect about the pound being undervalued at present. Nevertheless, one is bound to recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done, that the level of the pound at any given time depends upon our industrial performance now and in the future. We have to get that industrial performance improved. That is our main task.

Standby Credit

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the standby credit arrangements with foreign bankers come to an end.

Mr. Healey: The standby credit facility expires on 9th December 1976.

Mr. Roberts: As what has been spent of the June loan has to be paid on 9th December, and as the IMF loan is not available until later that month, what steps is the Chancellor taking to ensure that there is not another run on the pound during the intervening period? Will he confirm or deny that he is seeking yet another loan from the EEC countries?

Mr. Healey: On the first question, we shall, of course, repay out of reserves if the IMF borrowing is not fully negotiated by 9th December, but it is far too early to take the view that it will not be negotiated by then. We cannot be sure. As the House will know, the Government are supporting public authority borrowing. The Central Electricity Generating Board is at present negotiating a loan of £500 million from the Eurocurrency markets. I do not expect any pressure on the pound if it were necessary to call on the reserves to repay on 9th December a few days before the IMF borrowing came through.
On the second question, that is not the case.

Mr. Crawford: May I inform the Chancellor very clearly that he will not for much longer be able to rely on Scottish oil revenues to fund any borrowing? Is he aware that the use to which those revenues are put will surely be determined soon by a sovereign Scottish Parliament and not by this House?

Mr. Healey: I am well aware that the inhabitants of the Shetland Isles have some misgivings about the claim made by the hon. Gentleman and some of his friends about the ownership of North Sea oil. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the North Sea oil belongs, and will continue to belong, to the people of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would not our credit be improved and the pound strengthened if we were able to conclude a reasonable offset agreement with Germany on the ever-increasing deficit in the balance of payments arising from keeping the British Army of the Rhine?

Mr. Healey: Of course, it is necessary for us to conclude a satisfactory offset agreement, and we have every intention of doing so.

Mr. Nott: Will the Chancellor confirm that the figure of $1·6 billion which is

being suggested in the Press and elsewhere as being the amount of the standby credit that has so far been spent is approximately the figure involved? Will he comment—though not in detail—on what he will be doing in foreign exchange markets? The pound was down this morning below $1·64 to $1·63½ at one time, and the Bank of England has clearly been intervening in the market again. What is the Government's policy? Do they intend to continue supporting sterling, to let it float or to borrow more when our existing credit is exhausted? There is total confusion everywhere about what is going on.

Mr. Healey: The Government's policy on both questions is exactly the same as the policy of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member and a Treasury Minister, and on which he has since turned his back. First, it is that we shall publish reserve figures monthly and figures for drawings at quarterly intervals. The figures will therefore be published in December. Secondly, we shall not comment on intervention policy any more than the hon. Gentleman did when he was a Treasury Minister. He really should not carry his disgust with his own record in the past so far as to suggest that the present Government should overthrow conventions regarding the publication of policies which have stood all Governments in good stead since the war.

Sir G. Howe: Instead of quite unjustly abusing my hon. Friend, will the Chancellor have the courtesy to tell the House what the nation appears to know—namely, whether or not the amount drawn on the standby credit by now is $1·6 billion? The figures were published by the Treasury in September. May we please have an up-to-date figure in the House?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can have an up-to-date figure at the time when it is conventional to publish it—namely, in December. We have no intention of changing precedents set by previous Governments in this regard.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend fully appreciate that one of the reasons why he is having this Tweedledum and Tweedledee argument with the Opposition is largely that he chose to


follow, not exactly but partially, the advice of the Opposition in policies that have been pursued generally throughout the last two years, particularly with regard to the Treasury? Will he not now understand that if he is to get out of this terrible impasse he must consider adopting the policies that have been advocated not merely by those of my hon. Friends in the Tribune Group but by an increasing number of people inside the Parliamentary Labour Party and in the Labour movement generally?

Mr. Healey: I am not quite clear whether my hon. Friend is posing as Alice or as the monstrous crow in the particular fable to which he refers, but it is not my impression, having attended almost all the debates on the economy over the last two and a half years, that the Opposition would share my hon. Friend's view that we have been following their policy.

Inflation

Mr. Rooker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of inflation at the latest date.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present rate of annual inflation in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan, West Germany and France.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with his progress in achieving his target for reducing the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The increase in the Retail Price Index for the 12 months to August was 13·8 per cent. We have already made considerable progress in bringing down the rate of inflation, but we shall not be satisfied until the United Kingdom rate is at least down to the levels of our main overseas competitors. The latest available OECD figures show that for the 12 months to July inflation was running at 9·5 per cent. in Japan, 9·4 per cent. in France, 5·4 per cent. in the United States of America and 4·1 per cent. in West Germany.

Mr. Rooker: Why do my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends insist on sending up the British inflation rate again

by insisting on the removal of food subsidies, which were one of the main planks in the election manifesto on which we all came to power and which, as we are constantly reminded, we have to retain? Why are we sending the inflation rate up again?

Mr. Barnett: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that, however one deals with the particular matter to which he referred, the money has to be found for that rate to be financed, and that in turn will have some effect on inflation. I am also sure he will appreciate that we are determined to see, wherever possible, that we keep down the level of food prices. For example, he will know that we are determined to resist the pressure on us to devalue the green pound, which I know some Conservative Members want to see devalued.

Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)—namely, what he expects to be the rate of inflation for next year? Can he say how he expects the pound to pick up when our inflation rate is still way above that of our major competitors?

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. One of the reasons for the depreciation of the pound is that our inflation rate is higher than the rate in other countries. We have to get that down and we are determined to do so. Over the next few months, one anticipates that the rate of inflation will be broadly at the present level, but I am certainly not prepared to make any forecasts beyond that.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rate of inflation has been brought down because of the cooperation of the trade union movement through the social contract in restraining earnings and income? Will he and his Department look at the proposals which the TUC has brought forward, not so much for import controls right across the board as for selective import controls, so that we can get many more people back to work?

Mr. Barnett: Of course, the social contract is absolutely central to the Government's policy. If one contemplates what would happen under the proposals


of the Conservative Party, which would break the social contract and add hugely to inflation, one realises the sort of problem that this country would face. As regards import controls and the suggestions of the TUC, my hon. Friend will appreciate that we have already taken a great many steps concerning selective import controls.

Mr. Arnold: What, approximately, will the recent depreciation in sterling add to the rate of inflation?

Mr. Barnett: I do not think one should exaggerate the effect of that either. It tends to be exaggerated frequently. The effect is somewhere in the region of one-quarter of 1 per cent. for every 1 per cent. of the depreciation. It is around that kind of level.

Mr. Noble: With regard to the problems of selective import controls, does my right hon. Friend agree that the real meaning of selective import controls is that they have to be effective? Does he agree that the controls on black-and-white television sets have done more for the Japanese television industry than for the British industry? Will he take into account the Chancellor's statement in July and get on with introducing selective controls, particularly in the sensitive industries of textiles and footwear?

Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend will know that I have a particular interest in some of the areas to which he has referred. Certainly I want to see effective action taken in respect of dumping. I believe that action will be taken and is being taken. I certainly cannot agree with what my hon. Friend said about television sets.

Mr. David Howell: Can we take it that the Government's target of single-figure inflation in the early months of next year has now been officially abandoned?

Mr. Barnett: Yes.

Invisible Export Earnings

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the United Kingdom's total imports of food, drink and tobacco is met by earnings on invisible exports.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): Over the last three years

gross invisible earnings were between two and a half and three times the value of the United Kingdom's imports of food, beverages and tobacco.

Mr. McCrindle: Do not these figures reveal the acute and continuing dependence of this country for its standard of living on the success of invisible exports? Does the Minister think that threats of nationalisation of all the sources of these invisible earnings will help in any way? Is it not perfectly clear that if they were nationalised a great deal of Britain's invisible trade would go elsewhere?

Mr. Davies: The figures show that the City makes some contribution, as indeed do all the other industries, to the balance of payments. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that insurance, for instance, in which I think he has a particular interest, contributes 4·1 per cent. of this total and banking contributes 6·9 per cent. of the total. The City should stop scratching itself on the back and perhaps consider more whether it has made a sufficient contribution to domestic British industry.

Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give an equivalent figure for Scotland? Scotland is basically self-sufficient in foodstuffs and is a massive exporter of food and drink, all of which will give an independent Scotland a healthy balance of payments situation which is undreamed of at present by the United Kingdom.

Mr. Davies: I would not agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The figures are United Kingdom figures and are based on a United Kingdom balance of payments.

Mr. Nott: The figures that the Minister of State quoted simply cannot be right. Is he referring to gross figures or net figures? He surely cannot be referring to the gross figure of invisible earnings in the total balance of payments. The figures of 6 per cent. and 4 per cent. cannot be right if these are gross figures being compared with the gross figures in the total balance of payments figures.

Mr. Davies: They are percentages of the gross figures.

Mr. McCrindle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek


to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Industrial Investment

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present level of investment in industry.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The latest Department of Industry investment intentions survey suggests that industrial investment decisions being taken now will lead to a more satisfactory level of investment than we have been seeing for the past year or so.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent increase in interest rates will have a significant effect on the level of investment in the next year? Can he say how long he expects these interest rates to remain at their present level? Would he be prepared to undertake a specific direction to the banking sector in respect of the nature of its advances in order to ensure that wherever advances are made they go specifically to investment?

Mr. Barnett: I can tell my hon. Friend that interest rates at their present level will stay as they are until the money supply is on target with what the Chancellor suggested in his statement of 22nd July. In respect of a direction to the banks that has already been done and I am sure that the banks will see to it that the maximum amount of resources goes to manufacturing industry.

Mr. Bulmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House by how much the minimum lending rate now exceeds the average return on capital of British industry?

Mr. Barnett: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is an impossible question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the interest charged is in most cases a comparatively small part of the unit costs. Opposition Members who are muttering in their seats must appreciate that the great bulk of new investment in manufacturing industry comes from ploughed-back profits and that the present Government and Chancellor have done more for manufacturing industry in this country than has been

done by any other Government since the war.

Mr. MacFarquhar: While appreciating what the Chancellor said on Monday about the source from which firms get much of their investment capital may I ask my right hon. Friend to say how long he thinks we can keep the minimum lending rate up at its present level before investment intentions for the future will definitely be affected?

Mr. Barnett: I certainly share my hon. Friend's hope that we will be able to get the minimum lending rate down as soon as possible, but it is not possible to say when just now.

National Savings Certificates

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what age men and women, respectively, are able to purchase index-related savings certificates.

Mr. Denzil Davies: 65 for men and 60 for women.

Mr. Atkins: What reason can there be for this discrimination against men? It cannot be said, can it, as with pensions, that its removal would cost more? In fact it would lead to greater savings, which are so badly needed.

Mr. Davies: The reason why the ages were chosen as they were is that it was felt that this form of saving should be confined to people of national retirement age, and they are based on the ages at which people receive national retirement pension.

Economic Policy

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to bring forward further economic measures.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to announce further economic or fiscal measures in the near future.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to bring forward further economic measures in the near future.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to my statement in the debate last Monday.

Mr. Adley: In the light of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance to the 20 million people in this country who have bank accounts and the 8½ million people who have company pensions or are involved in life assurance schemes that the Government will not destroy their past and ruin their future prospects by nationalising the banking and insurance industries?

Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that this Government have no intention whatsoever of nationalising the banks and the insurance industry. He and I will do our best to see that it will not figure in the programme of the next Labour Government which will be taking office in a few years' time.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the next Labour Government's programme will be drawn up by a liaison committee and that what will be in that programme will not be decided by my right hon. Friend or by any other individual but will be decided by the majority of such a liaison committee?
If I may now come to the question of the economic proposals, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would like some alternative? Why are he and his right hon. Friends so dedicated to opposing any type of import controls when past Labour Governments have successfully brought in import controls, which had an important effect in helping to overcome our problems at that time?

Mr. Healey: First, let me say that this Government have no ideological or political objection to import controls if they will help the economy. Traditionally, of course, the Conservative Party has been the party of protection in this country. There is nothing specifically Socialist about interfering with the flow of trade. This Government have already introduced controls on imports from many countries. Indeed, imports from almost all countries outside the OECD are already under some sort of control—that is to say, the COMECON countries and the countries of the Third World—but whether or not that makes sense depends on the interests of the British people. I have made it clear many times that I do not think that it would make sense from anybody's point of view to protect the less efficient and

declining industries at the risk of destroying the markets on which the more efficient and growing industries depend for demand.

Mr. Latham: Is not Mr. Sam Brittan absolutely right when he refers to demoralisation in Government circles because, although Ministers know perfectly well what must be done to save our economy, they lack the political support or will to do it? Was that not clear in the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)?

Mr. Healey: It is not for me to comment on Mr. Sam Brittan. Sometimes he is right and sometimes he is wrong—but he is quite wrong in believing that either the Government or I are demoralised.

Mr. Cronin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the basic problems of the economy is the lack of investment in British industry, although there has been some indication of substantial improvement in the near future? Will he consider making substantial cash grants for investment as a part of any future fiscal measures that he has in mind?

Mr. Healey: This Government have done more to stimulate investment than earlier Governments, particularly through our assistance by means of tax relief on stock appreciation, which ensures that no manufacturing company which invests its profit pays any tax whatever. But I do not think that across-the-board grants for investment have proved an effective way of encouraging investment. A recent study by the EEC shows that we have more generous investment incentives than any other country in Europe, yet we have a lower level of investment than many. I believe that possibly a better answer to this problem is the type of accelerated investment project programme such as we saw successfully applied this year.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the horrifying burden of repayments of interest which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the taxpayers of tomorrow, can he categorically assure us that he will not agree to further foreign borrowing by Her Majesty's Government or by nationalised industries? In view of the state of our borrowing, is he aware that if Britain were a public company he would be


very lucky indeed to escape imprisonment?
Mr. Healey: The programme of borrowing abroad by the nationalised industries was begun successfully in 1973 by the previous Administration, which borrowed nearly $3 billion by that means in that year. I believe that it is now making a very important contribution towards dealing with our current account balance of payments problems.

Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week the Warwickshire County Council announced its decision to invest £96,000 of its employees' pension fund contributions in Japan? What has the Treasury done, if anything, to dissuade that authority from doing so? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such decisions are highly damaging to the British economy and amount to the use of British workers' money to damage British workers' interests?

Mr. Healey: I must confess that I am totally unaware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. If he will give me details, I will look into it, but I understood that it was not possible for British bodies to invest money in that way abroad without exchange control permission. I suspect that my hon. Friend has his facts somewhat awry, but if he sends me details I will look into the matter.

Mr. Nott: If the Chancellor is not demoralised—I am using his term—by a fall in the value of sterling of 30 per cent., by a 15 per cent. minimum lending rate, by 1½ million unemployed and by inflation which is now beginning to rise again, what exactly will it take to demoralise him?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful for the hon. Member's curiosity. He will recall that the Chancellor under whom he served raised minimum lending rate to 13 per cent. at a time when inflation was lower than it is today and that, therefore, the effective interest rate was a great deal higher than it is at the moment. I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman, even today, shows no sign of demoralisation.

Import Deposit Schemes

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study

he has made of import deposit schemes and if he can make an estimate of the effect a 50 per cent. import deposit scheme would have on the balance of payments.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Examples such as the 1968–70 United Kingdom scheme and the recent Italian scheme suggest some deferment of imports but only very small net effects. The main balance of payments effect would be temporary foreign financing of some part of the total amount of deposits, which would be reversed when the scheme ended.

Mr. Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, even if he does not like this particular form of scheme, in view of our enormous deficits on the balance of payments with the EEC countries, with Japan and with many other parts of the industrialised world, it is time some form of import control was operated on manufactured goods? Although the Chancellor has just said that import controls are not themselves Socialist, does he not agree that, even so, they are humane if they can keep up the level of employment and the standard of living in this country?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend's Question related to import deposits. Again, I would point out that the effect on industry and its liquidity might he damaging if import deposits were introduced and that they might not have much effect on the balance of payments. As for the humanity of import controls, of course by introducing general import controls we would act in a way detrimental to the interests of many poor countries.

Mr. Nelson: Is the Minister aware that his indecision on this matter and his failure to rebut at an early stage suggestions and calls for import controls, quotas and deposits of this kind are having the short-term effect of pressurising many importers into increasing their orders and, therefore, having a damaging effect on the short-term balance of payments position?

Mr. Davies: This Government have made it clear time and time again and are making it clear again now that we do not see any form of import controls as any way of solving the basic problems of the British economy.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning his announcement on 22nd July of reductions in public expenditure; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Healey: I have received a considerable number of letters about the measures announced on 22nd July, and my replies have explained the Government's purpose in introducing them.

Mr. Ovenden: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the strongest and most important representations he has received have come from the TUC and the Labour Party Conference? What reply does he intend to send to constituency Labour parties which will be writing to him in the coming months asking him to take note of the Labour Party Conference's resolution and drop these cuts, which are damaging to the social contract and to employment?

Mr. Healey: I suspect, although I would not commit myself absolutely, that I shall be sending them replies along the lines of replies to letters I have already received, explaining that it is essential that the Government should have made these cuts and should stick to the public expenditure levels they have set if we are to avoid a renewal of inflation and the choking-off of investment in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Fairbairn: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot entirely anticipate the inflation rate, can he answer a simple question about the bond he announced on Monday? If one puts in £5 now and in four years' time gets out £7, does the Chancellor expect that the £7 will be worth more or less than the £5 today?

Mr. Healey: I suspect that it will be worth more. There is no question about the fact that, for the many who will be taking it out, the bond offers a very much better return than most other investment opportunities.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, though it is important to keep down the rate of inflation, that in itself will not of necessity

cure unemployment? Is he further aware that West Germany has the lowest inflation rate in Western Europe yet still has a substantial unemployment problem, with over 1 million out of work?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend has made a very important point. It is the case that the United States, for example, which has a much lower inflation rate than we have, has a substantially higher level of unemployment. On the other hand, we have learnt through bitter experience over many years that unless we can get inflation under control we have no chance of reducing the rate of unemployment. That is well understood by all sections of the Labour movement at this time. That is why the trade union movement for the second year running has accepted limits on settlements reached in pay negotiations, which has contributed so much to the fall in the rate of inflation in the last 12 months.

Sir G. Howe: In view of the importance that the right hon. Gentleman rightly attaches to getting the inflation rate down, can he take a little further the confession made by the Chief Secretary just now? Will he confirm that the target of getting inflation below 10 per cent. has passed entirely out of sight and that the Government in their own calculations for next year are currently proceeding, as reported in the Press today, on the assumption of 15 per cent.? Does not that of itself underline the necessity for further economic measures?

Mr. Healey: The Press report to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers is totally wrong. There is no ground whatever for that belief. What the Government have said—and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated it on Monday—is that our objective, which we intend to ensure is achieved, is to bring our inflation rate down to that of the mean of our international competitors by the end of next year. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows that one of the major factors in the progress we, like France and other countries, have made in bringing down the rate of inflation is the unexpectedly high increase in commodity prices in the early part of this year, an increase which has latterly resumed.

Economic Policy

Mr. Jessel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to introduce an autumn Budget.

Mr. Joel Barnett: My right hon. Friend will take such measures as our strategy and the situation demand.

Mr. Jessel: If ever the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a chance to introduce another Budget, will he remember that high taxation tends to cause bankruptcies and so to increase unemployment?

Mr. Barnett: The Conservative Front Bench and the hon. Gentleman imply that somehow or other they will be able to reduce the present level of taxation. That is most dangerous nonsense and it does the greatest possible harm in the country.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In making preparations for the next Budget, will my right hon. Friend have in mind fiscal measures that will prevent the sort of activity of which we have had recent revelations in the cases of Lonrho, Slater Walker and other companies?

Mr. Skinner: And Jessel.

Mr. Barnett: I assure my hon. Friend that we should take all necessary measures, and I am sure that he will not be disappointed with them. At the end of the day, the crucial thing we have to do is to recognise that the central objective is to improve our industrial performance, and that is what we intend to do.

Mr. Marten: As the preparation of any Budget in the next year or so will be inextricably bound up with the proposed borrowing from the International Monetary Fund, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the reply which the Chancellor gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) just now? Did he say that $3·9 billion would be enough and that there was no need to borrow more?

Mr. Barnett: I am sure that, unusually, the hon. Gentleman did not hear what my right hon. Friend said, since my right hon. Friend did not say what the hon. Gentleman implies he said. The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening.

Mr. Marten: I was listening.

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend said that whatever remains outstanding on 9th December of the $3·9 billion will be repaid on time.

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Industry in relation to the Government's industrial strategy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Yes. There is close coordination between my right hon. Friends on this and all other matters of common concern.

Mr. Latham: In the interests of economic and industrial recovery, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of saying that he has no intention of adopting the alternative Queen's Speech proposed by Transport House?

The Prime Minister: I should be happy to receive proposals for the Queen's Speech from anyone, including the hon. Gentleman if he cares to put some forward, and in due course, when the Speech appears, we shall invite the House to support it in the terms that it will have been proposed by, I hope, myself.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend ask his colleagues to give urgent consideration to the effectiveness or otherwise of regional economic investment incentives, because they seem to have been less effective than they should have been? Surely it is time for alternative and more effective measures.

The Prime Minister: I think that the regional policy on which we all embarked after the war has had a considerable measure of success in lessening the differences among the various areas but some of the macro weapons employed in the 1960s have become a little outdated, which is one reason why the selective assistance given under the Industry Act and in other ways applies the aid more where it is required. I think that we should continue to pursue that method.

Mr. Mayhew: When will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the considerations that led him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn their backs


on the nationalisation of banks and insurance companies should lead them to turn their backs on the nationalisation of the aircraft industry?

The Prime Minister: That is not my view, nor that of the party I represent, of the way in which the aircraft industries of the world are moving. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman might catch up with the latter part of the twentieth century in due course.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister when next he intends to make a ministerial broadcast on Government economic policy.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) on 27th July.

Mr. Roberts: Before my right hon. Friend makes another of his very effective ministerial broadcasts, will he look at the need to close some of the gaps between the Government's policies and the expectations of the TUC under the social contract? In the light of that, will he also look again at some of the social implications of the public expenditure cuts, at some of the possibilities of extending import controls, and at areas of social advance such as earlier retirement, which could be introduced at minimal cost?

The Prime Minister: The social contract will remain the basis of the Government's policy and we shall endeavour to carry it out as far as we can. On the question of import controls, I have received a very interesting document today, sent to me jointly by the TUC and the CBI—and coming as it does from those two stables harnessed together it clearly needs very careful consideration.

Mr. Heffer: They are all Tribunites now.

The Prime Minister: I am arranging for that careful consideration to be undertaken. As regards the expectations of our people, I remind my hon. Friend and the House of what I said, among other things, in my first broadcast as Prime Minister. I looked it up because I

thought that there might be some reference to it today. I said that
despite the measures of the last 12 months, we are still not earning the standard of life we are enjoying.

Hon. Members: Reading.

The Prime Minister: I am quoting:
There's no soft option. I don't promise you any real easement for some time to come. There can be no lasting improvement in your living standards until we can achieve it without going deeper and deeper into debt as a nation.
That is what I said in my very first broadcast, and I have continued to say it—[HON. MEMBERS: "What are you doing about it?"] We are taking action. If Opposition Members will forget their prejudices for a moment and read the introduction to "The Right Approach", they will see that what is required is not only action from the Government, but action taken by both sides of industry to reverse what "The Right Approach" called the long-standing decline. This is a national problem and Opposition Members should treat it as such.

Mr. David Steel: On Tuesday the Prime Minister said that internal differences in the Labour Party were matters entirely for him and nothing to do with the rest of us. Is he aware that that cannot be the case, because the differences in the Government party are highly damaging to the national interest and to confidence abroad? When he next broadcasts, will he tell the country how long he is prepared to preside over this private and unacceptable coalition while the value of our currency plummets?

The Prime Minister: I cannot think of any better coalition that could do the job. The thought of the Liberals and the Conservatives attempting against the recent policy announcements by the Conservative Party to try to achieve such a coalition would divide the country hopelessly in two. Unless we make the approach which I outlined in my first broadcast, and which I have repeated today, I believe that we shall not be able to enlarge the manufacturing base of our nation and thus ensure that we obtain the social benefits that we require.

Mr. MacFarquhar: When he makes his next broadcast, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give his views on the


connection between education and economic performance, and will he confirm the reports that he is about to make far-reaching suggestions about changes in our national system that would involve the training of more engineers?

The Prime Minister: More mileage and column inches have been given to a speech I have not yet made than were given to many speeches I have made. That should be a lesson to all us publicists. Unfortunately, I did not have the wit to start this one.
I think that there is a case for opening a national debate on these matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am taking advantage of the opening of an extension to Ruskin College, Oxford, which has contributed a great deal to the trade union and Labour movement, to discuss matters which are of great importance to industry and also in a wider sense.

Mrs. Thatcher: But is the Prime Minister aware that we agree with a number of his speeches? The trouble is that his actions do not match them. Surely he is aware that the facts show we are facing the most serious economic crisis in the post-war period and that there is a total lack of confidence in sterling. That is where his actions have led. What actions does he now propose to take to restore confidence?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady will find in due course that confidence is a plant that grows very slowly. There is no short-term action that can be taken to repair confidence—which, alas, now extends to the future prospects of the British industrial system. I believe that the pessimism is overdone. As I go round the country visiting factories and seeing the work that is being done I believe that there is a considerable future, because there is a growing realism on both sides of industry in our industrial system that it is possible to overcome the problems that have led to what "The Right Approach" calls the long-standing decline. If we worked on that aspect, confidence would be restored. However, I promise the right hon. Lady that no gimmicks or short-term cuts will achieve our aim.

Mrs. Thatcher: But there appears to be realism everywhere except in Her

Majesty's Government. Why does the Prime Minister not now follow the policies of these Governments which have a surplus to lend us in order to bail us out?

The Prime Minister: The policies of various Governments depend on their internal circumstances. For example, the United States does not depend on foreign trade to the extent that we do. Her foreign trade is an addition to her gross internal product. The United Kingdom depends on exports, and it is in that respect that we must push ourselves much further and faster. Obviously, in answering a supplementary question I cannot instance other countries and indicate all the differences. But I believe that as the industrial strategy has been agreed by both sides of industry—and I hope that it will not receive discouragement from the Opposition, even if they cannot find anything helpful to say—that is the best way to march on the long road back.

CBI AND TUC

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.

Mr. Robinson: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) on 12th October.

Mr. Ovenden: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, what reassurance will he give that the Government will continue to meet their side of the social contract? Is he aware that the faith of ordinary working people in the contract is taking a bit of a bashing in the face of rising food prices, high unemployment, and now a high level of mortgage interest rates? Will he re-examine the Government's policy on food subsidies and see whether he can do something to show that we are playing our part in keeping prices down?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we shall consider any of these matters. There is no doubt that the consequences of the


common agricultural policy are at present helping to keep food prices down, but that is an adventitious factor that will not persist for ever. What is needed is a long-term reform of the CAP, and that is what we intend to pursue.

Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall last year's invitation by the TUC to the former KGB boss, Mr. Alexander Shelepin? Will he say whether he shares the enthusiasm of the National Executive Committee of his own party for the forthcoming visit as an official guest of the Labour Party of Mr. Boris Pomonaryov, who is charged with supervising the furtherance of the interests of Soviet imperialism in countries outside the Eastern bloc, or will the right hon. Gentleman choose this moment to dissociate himself and the British Government from that invitation?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that will come up at my meeting with the TUC and CBI. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) in his professional capacity has considerable experience of interviewing a number of gentlemen in other countries who are not entirely devoted to the democratic cause. I think that in pursuit of that professional exercise the hon. Gentleman has managed to preserve his purity undefiled. I promise him that my friends on the National Executive Committee are as tough as he is in that regard.
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has met Mr. Pomonaryov. If not, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will soon be seeking an interview with him. I shall be ready to see Mr. Pomonaryov personally. I would welcome discussion with him on some aspects of Soviet policy, including detente and other matters concerning the agreement signed in Helsinki. It is foolish to suggest that we should cut ourselves off from that kind of exchange when we know what view we take.

Mr. Robinson: When my right hon. Friend next meets the CBI, will he discuss the desirability, and indeed the possibility, of reinstating enlarged advanced project schemes with a view to reinvigorating industrial investment, which unfortunately is now flagging?

The Prime Minister: I shall. I have already had discussions with the CBI about advancing investment. Some of

the schemes introduced by the Government are tailor made for this purpose and, as I have pointed out in the House before, some industries have already taken advantage of them and we have secured very considerable investment. I shall continue to draw this to the attention of the CBI and ask it to continue to use the schemes to their full effect.

Mr. McCrindle: When he next speaks to the TUC, will the Prime Minister discuss the Government's proposal to require that 50 per cent. of the representation on occupational pension schemes should come from trade unions? Will he communicate to the TUC that members of these schemes take a very strong view against this proposal? Is he aware that, although they are not against participation—indeed, they are quite in favour of it—they see no reason why there should be a 50 per cent. representation from trade unions?

The Prime Minister: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's view, but I am not able to depart from the policy already put forward.

Mr. Greville Janner: If my right hon. Friend sees Pomonaryov, will he express to him the deep concern of Members on both sides of the House about the treatment by the Soviet authorities of their minority groups in general and the Jewish minority in particular? As Pomonaryov will be leading a group of academicians from the Soviet Academy of Sciences, will my right hon. Friend protest in particular at the treatment of Academician Levich, who has a place at University College, Oxford, and who has been harassed and persecuted for so long?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that I shall be able to raise with Mr. Pomonaryov some of the consequences flowing from the Helsinki Agreement. I suggest to the House that if these discussions are held against a background of demonstrations and protests, we are unlikely to get a rational discussion going. I would much prefer to have the opportunity of quiet talks with these members of the Praesidium than to have a series of demonstrations taking place so that we spend all our time talking about the demonstrations and very little time discussing the real issues at stake.

Mr. Powell: Reverting to an earlier supplementary question on the cost of


food, would it not be of great assistance and satisfaction to the TUC and the public generally if this country were able to buy food at advantageous prices in world markets?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think it would. It was always one of the weaknesses of our entry into the Community that the CAP does not suit our requirements. That is why we must pursue in the Community with some, though not all, other member countries a policy of getting substantial reforms over a period. I believe that we shall be able to do that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Business question—Mrs. Thatcher.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18TH OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Weights and Measures (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Trinidad and Tobago Republic Bill [Lords] and on the Resale Prices Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 19TH OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Companies (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 20TH OCTOBER—Motion on the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order.
THURSDAY 21ST OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Energy Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 22ND OCTOBER—There will be a debate on agriculture, on a motion for the Adjournment when EEC Documents

R/2274/75, R/1742/76, R/1734/76 and R/2295/76 will be relevant.
MONDAY 25TH OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Retirement of Teachers (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and of the Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Mrs. Thatcher: May I put two points to the right hon. Gentleman? During the overspill period, will he be able to provide a whole day for a foreign affairs debate as we were promised before the House rose? Shall we also have a day for a debate on the report on educational standards in reading by the Bullock Committee which I appointed and which has published its findings although they have not yet been debated?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give a direct reply to the right hon. Lady immediately. I shall certainly look at both her representations and see what we can do.

Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the Prayer on the Order Paper concerning poultry meat hygiene? Will early time be made available to debate this important issue?

Mr. Foot: I have noticed the motion and shall certainly consider whether we can have a discussion on it.

Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Friday is not the most appropriate day for a debate on agriculture? As the proposals put forward by the Community, including a sheep meat regime when we already have enough food regimes anyway, are rather stupid, could we not ask the Common Market to delay this matter and take it later so that we can hold our debate in mid-week, which would better suit hon. Members from agricultural constituencies?

Mr. Foot: I apologise to the hon. Member and the House for the inconvenience of having this debate on agriculture on a Friday. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's valid claim, but it is necessary that we should have our debates before the discussions that take place in Brussels. If we do not have our debate next week, the opportunity might be lost. I do not believe that we can get a postponement of the discussions in Brussels the following week. The hon. Gentleman


has raised the question of inconvenience for the House arising from the fact that we have to arrange some of our affairs to deal with the situation in the EEC, but it is an inconvenience which is not easily overcome.

Mr. Ashley: Although some hon. Members have been deterred from raising the issue of violence because of the hanging, flogging and birching brigade, this is a very grave social problem and, in view of the fact that rape, mugging, vandalism and football hooliganism are now defacing Great Britain, costing millions of pounds and causing great human misery, is it not time for the House to debate this very serious subject?

Mr. Foot: I understand the public concern on all the subjects raised by my hon. Friend. I heard him raising the same matters on the radio this morning. I am not sure that it is advisable, in the interests of a proper discussion on all these subjects, to lump them together. There may be different causes in different cases. I am not opposed to a debate when we can find time, but we do not have all that much time.

Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great consternation felt about the reduced frequency with which Questions on Scotland and foreign affairs are now to be taken? Will he undertake to review the time allotted to Questions and relate it in future Sessions to the average number of Questions tabled to each Minister? Is the writ for the Walsall, North by-election to be moved next week? If not, why not?

Mr. Foot: The moving of writs is not my business, although I take some interest in this academic question. I cannot make any statement about it to the hon. Gentleman.
The fact that time has to be made available for a new Minister to answer Questions means that there is a change in the roster. We have followed the normal procedures by which such changes are made. However, the changes do not have the consequences described by the hon. Gentleman because in the spill-over period there will be no reduction in, for example, opportunities for Scottish or foreign affairs Questions. If

there are doubts or difficulties about what may happen in the new Session, we shall be prepared to consider all representations and try to make arrangements which are as convenient as possible for the House. In the spill-over period, there will be no reduction in the amount of time for Scottish Questions and there is no desire on our part to try to reduce the available time.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that although there may be no infringement on the time for Scottish Questions in the coming Session, they will be taken once every four weeks and that must affect their place on the roster in the next Session? Does he not realise that there are seven English Ministries represented in one man in the form of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that it is essential that Scottish Members have this chance to raise Questions pending the establishment of a Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Foot: The answer that I have given to the hon. Gentleman previously is the correct one. For the remainder of this Session of Parliament there is no reduction in the opportunity to put Scottish Questions. If in the new Session it is thought that there may be any injury involved in the change in the roster, we shall look at it and have consultations with others in the House to see whether we can make the best provision possible.
As to the future, and having a proper opportunity for Scottish Questions to be adequately discussed, I fully agree that we should have eventually an Assembly in Scotland which can discuss many of these matters.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that while we as Welsh Members regard Welsh Question time as important, we fully appreciate that as Welsh Members we have the right to take part in all debates in the House of Commons?

Mr. Foot: I think that is a lesson that should be learned by all hon. Members, as my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer concerning next Friday's business? Will he bear in mind that those on the Select Committee dealing with European secondary


legislation are deeply concerned at the fact that three major debates should take place in one day? Does the Leader of the House not think it advisable to have these debates one at a time during the coming week? Will he therefore reconsider what he has already said?

Mr. Foot: I do not believe that we can rearrange the business for next week, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take into acount very seriously the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee. I think that the Scrutiny Committee would acknowledge that the Government have done this.
Once it was decided that we had to have the debate next week, we believed that it was most convenient to have it on Friday. I am sorry that it has to be on Friday, but we have to have it then in order to carry out another of the Scrutiny Committee's recommendations, namely, that we should debate EEC matters before decisions are reached in Brussels.

Mr. Loyden: In view of the hardships that may well fall on the elderly and other sections of the community in the coming winter period arising from disconnections of electricity and gas, will my right hon. Friend give very urgent consideration to discussing in the House the Oakes Report which put forward proposals covering this matter?

Mr. Foot: I recognise what my hon. Friend says about the importance of this subject and will look at the possibility of a debate. But, as the whole House recognises, the pressure of time is very considerable. I will look at it as one possibility.

Mr. Rathbone: Now that we have this very fine box in one corner of the House, will the Leader of the House make time available for us to discuss the further step towards the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House for the benefit of the House and of the nation?

Mr. Foot: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting a fresh debate on the televising of the House of Commons. I am not sure that we can have a debate on this in the very near future, because it was discussed on a fairly recent occasion. The House came to a decision on the matter—not the

decision that I should have wished—and I think that decision holds.
There was a decision about broadcasting the proceedings of the House, and the provision of the necessary facilities in the House, just before the recess, and it is that decision which governs the operations now being put in hand.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the business which still has to come back from the Lords, will my right hon. Friend say how long this Session is to be extended and when the new Session is likely to begin?

Mr. Foot: We think that the new Session is likely to begin on 17th November. We have a few weeks' business to transact before then. We hope that we shall get it all through in time intact, and that is the Government's intention.

Mr. du Cann: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is the considered opinion of the Chairmen of Select Committees of the House, which I have been asked to state to him, that in the past it has been the habit to allow insufficient time for debates on the reports of the Select Committees?
To take the right hon. Gentleman's mind beyond next week and beyond the overspill, if programmes are now being formulated for the new Session of Parliament, will he do his best to see that this past thoroughly unsatisfactory habit is changed and that adequate time is allowed as some recompense for the diligent and important work done by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Foot: I certainly agree with the principle which lies behind what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that Select Committee Reports should be discussed in the House. Indeed, what the Select Committees recommend is not the view of the House until the House itself has had a chance of looking at these matters and passing an opinion on them. In recent years it has been the experience that some of the debates on the Select Committee Reports have not always been the most exciting of our debates. But that is not a reason for trying to depart from the principle. We shall look at what the right hon. Gentleman has said and see how far we can accommodate his suggestion.

Mr. Peyton: Is the Leader of the House in a position to state the Government's attitude to the order in which Oral Questions appear on the Order Paper and to the Select Committee's recommendation on that subject? We should like the Leader of the House to look again at the matter of how often Foreign Office Questions appear on the Order Paper. This is of great importance at the moment. It would be wrong to allow foreign affairs Questions to go too low down the list.
We appreciate very much the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman's reaction to the questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and Devon, West (Mr. Mills), but I hope he will look again at this whole question of accommodating EEC material. I recognise that it is a very difficult problem, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at it.

Mr. Foot: Taking the last question first, we had a debate on how we were to deal with EEC business, and many of the suggestions made in that debate have been incorporated in the proposals we have recommended to the House as to how we should deal with EEC business in future. I am not saying that we managed to accept or to offer to put into operation all the suggestions made in that debate, but we made a genuine response to what was said, and will continue to do so. But trying to compress the business of the House in order to accommodate the necessity of having debates on EEC business before the decisions are reached in Brussels, remains a difficult problem. We are trying to meet both requirements.
As to the order of Oral Questions, this is primarily a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, but I think that Members generally would welcome the adoption of the proposed change, perhaps initially on an experimental basis. Certainly the Government are prepared to support that. We hope to proceed on that basis for a period and to see how it works out.
There is no alteration before the Session ends in the number of occasions on which Foreign Office Questions can be put. I have no doubt that in the discussions we have had, that has been taken into account. If there is any fear that in

altering the roster we are interfering with the position of Foreign Office Questions, we shall be prepared to look at the way in which we devise the roster for the next Session.

Mr. Speaker: In response to what the Lord President has just said about the arrangement of Questions, if that appears to be the will of the House I will give instructions to enable the matter to be pursued as an experiment.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been many occasions when the rota of Questions has been altered in the House, without, in some instances, any protest at all?
Will my right hon. Friend understand that some of us are deeply offended by the way in which it seems that he is constantly giving way to the blackmail of a group on the Conservative Benches? Will he take a suggestion from me, and. instead of constantly giving way, give this group of cry babies a rattle apiece?

Mr. Foot: I am unwilling to give way to blackmail from any quarter of the House, I hope.

Mr. Skinner: Not from me.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that my hon. Friend has ever attempted to apply blackmail to me, and I am sure that if it occurred I should take note of the fact immediately.
I was seeking simply to state the facts. There has been a misapprehension about them. It was thought by some right hon. and hon. Members that the rearrangement of the roster in a way which was thought generally to meet the wishes of the House would injure Scottish Questions in this Session. That is not the case The interests of Scottish Members have to be taken into account irrespective of the part of the House in which they may sit. The majority of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies sit on the Government Benches, and it is their rights that I am taking into account along with those of Scottish Members in other parts of the House.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been a number of references to Question Time and to an "experimental period". I understand that this is based on Mr. Speaker's


Report. But it seems to me that, before we go ahead with this, there should at least be a brief explanation so that hon. Members can be fully aware—[Interruption.] I see an Opposition Member waving a copy of the report at me. But it is not right that an agreement can be made quickly in a couple of words between the Chair and the two Front Benches without hon. Members having an opportunity to discuss it.

Mr. Foot: I understand what my hon. Friend says. There is a recommendation from the Procedure Committee. It was the general agreement of the House and of right hon. and hon. Members in different parts of it that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee. The Committee has recommended how we should deal with it, and I was merely saying that the Government thought it right to proceed with this on an experimental basis. Mr. Speaker has said that he is quite prepared to do that. I think that that is the best way to proceed.
I know that there are many reports of the Procedure Committee coming before us which require to be debated and possibly voted upon before their recommendations are put into operation. But I think that this is a case where we can proceed as I suggest. If we find that it does not work or if Members think that it is unfair or working adversely, we can look at it afresh very soon. But I do not think that it is necessary to have a debate and a decision on this report.

Mr. Clegg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern in the fishing ports about the negotiations concerning the EEC 50-mile limit and, even more important to the deep-sea ports, the Icelandic agreement, which runs out next month? If we cannot have a debate on the subject next week, perhaps we can have a statement from the responsible Minister to let us know how matters are proceeding.

Mr. Foot: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and see whether he considers it convenient to make a statement, but I do not think that it will be possible to arrange a debate.

Mr. Palmer: May I impress upon my right hon. Friend the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) about the need for Reports of Select Committees to be debated? My right hon. Friend said that when these debates have been arranged in the past they have not always been the most exciting ones. However, will he agree that excitement is not always a test of quality in a debate?

Mr. Foot: I am not saying that it is always a test. However, the amount of interest that the House shows must be taken into account to some degree. That does not mean that I am retracting what I said to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). I believe that the whole of the business of the rest of the House of Commons is subordinate to this Chamber. All reports should be made known and as many of them as possible should be debated. But of course there is tremendous pressure for debating time in this Chamber itself.

Mr. Hastings: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and ask him specifically whether he will at least arrange at an early date a debate on vandalism, which is causing increasing and deep concern in many areas of the country? Has not the time come when it should be ventilated in the Chamber?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that I have anything to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I am not offering an immediate debate on the subject, and I am dubious whether all these different subjects should be lumped together in one debate. But I should not be opposed to a debate at a later date. It is obviously a matter within the range of the Home Office and debates under Home Office procedures.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Government supporters see the secret deal of the Bank of England with Slater Walker and its seeming attempt to blackmail the seamen as clear indications that this so-called nationalised institution is under no real public control or accountability? May I appeal to my right hon. Friend to arrange time to debate the machinations


of the Bank of England as soon as possible?

Mr. Foot: I cannot offer a special debate on the subject, but obviously it is a matter which can be raised by my hon. Friend in any general economic debate we have.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Leader of the House give consideration to the arrangements for the new computer clock which now adorns the House? At the moment it reads "0355". However it is now 1555, or very nearly eight bells. Might not it be for the convenience of the House, since we work such odd hours, if it were adjusted to the 24-hour clock or, alternatively, perhaps to one which might appeal more to Mr. Speaker, showing the number of hours or minutes which have elapsed since the beginning of a speech?

Mr. Foot: It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not introduced a non-controversial topic. Therefore, I had better not tread further into what he has proposed.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the present anomalies in the retirement system, not least among coal miners, is there any prospect of an early debate on this subject?

Mr. Foot: I cannot offer an early debate on this subject, as on several others, for reasons which hon. Members know. But that again is an issue which can be raised in a general economic debate.

Mr. Michael Latham: Since it has rained almost continuously since the appointment of the drought Minister, the Rain God from Birmingham, may we have a statement next week on how the drought siutation is going? It may be that we shall need some flood prevention measures soon.

Mr. Foot: I shall ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement. However, I do not think that anyone can complain that his appointment brought such immediate results.

Mr. Burden: Would it not help the Government to keep to their time table about bringing this Session of Parliament to an end if, in view of the scathing remarks made about the Dock Work

Regulation Bill by ex-Cabinet Ministers of the Labour Party in another place yesterday, the Leader of the House dropped this Bill entirely?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have no intention of dropping that Bill. It is a Bill which is in the national interest. We are very sorry but not surprised that this point is not understood by Lord George-Brown.

Mr. Ronald Bell: With regard to next Friday's business, will the Leader of the House realise that we have not yet found the right answer for this European secondary legislation and that it is not so much a question of a Friday or a mid-week day? Is it not the case that there is such a mass of paper reaching hon. Members that the importance of some of these Orders is not realised before a debate, with the result that the attendance and the interest is thin? We have to find some other way. Can the right hon Gentleman suggest one?

Mr. Foot: I accept that fully. I do not think that we have found the proper answer to this question yet. What we proposed in response to the debate a few months ago makes a modest advance in helping to deal with it. I think that we shall have to return to the subject on future occasions.

Mr. Goodhew: On the subject of next Wednesday's business, since the sanctions against Rhodesia were intended to force Mr. Ian Smith to agree to a settlement acceptable to the British Government, and since Mr. Ian Smith has now accepted unequivocally the package deal put to him by Dr. Kissinger and agreed by the British Government, what is the point of maving the continuation of the sanctions Order at this moment, just before there is to be a conference in Geneva? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the whole thing will be brought to the ground by the equivocation of the Foreign Minister this week?

Mr. Foot: I repudiate all of the accusations made against the Foreign Secretary by the hon. Gentleman. All the other matters he has raised can be raised in the debate next week. I have no doubt that what he says will be suitably demolished.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the remaining four hon. Members who wish to put a question to the Lord President. I hope that they will be brief.

Mr. Churchill: I am sure that it was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House with regard to the roster of Questions. Is he aware, however, that because of the doubling of time available for environment and transport Questions, the time available in this Session for Scottish Office, Foreign Office and Common Market Questions has been halved and that, after next Wednesday's Question period, there will be no opportunity for another four weeks to address a Question to the Foreign Secretary? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this whole question of doubling the time available to environment and transport at the expense of Scottish, Foreign Office and EEC Questions, as this is wholly unacceptable to a large section of this House?

Mr. Foot: I certainly did not intend to mislead the House, nor have I done so. I said that there was no reduction in the number of occasions during the rest of this Session when Questions could be put on Scottish Office and Foreign Office matters. If the alterations imply that at a later stage, in the new Session, there will be some difficulties, we are prepared to look at this again and discuss it, as we have discussed all these matters of how to arrange the roster. We want to arrange the roster in a way that is fair for hon. Members in all parts of the House. There is no attempt to mislead the House in any sense whatever. What we want to do is to meet the wishes of all hon. Members in the best way we can.

Mr. Moate: May I refer to an earlier question on broadcasting? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that further resolutions will be necessary before any further steps can be taken with the sound broadcasting arrangements? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to introduce those resolutions in this Session? On the question of these clocks, can he tell us whether they were as cheap as they look and can he, perhaps, tell us how to get rid of them?

Mr. Foot: The arrangements about broadcasting, and the installations, were

approved by the House prior to the recess. Everything that has been done in this matter is as a result of what the House has decided. As to the clocks, the decision to install them, and the question of their artistic quality, was dealt with before I arrived on the scene. The House decided quite a long time ago that this is what should happen. That is how it has occurred.

Mr. Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time soon for a debate on the problems facing the offshore platform and module construction industry in view of the worries within that industry about employment prospects and orders?

Mr. Foot: The employment prospects in the platform industry are a matter of great importance. I cannot offer any prospect of a special debate on the subject. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as my hon. Friends who have raised these matters know, there are other ways in which they can be brought to the attention of the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is strong feeling among Scottish Members of Parliament of all parties that it would be wrong to reduce opportunities for asking Questions on Scottish affairs in the next Session? Can he tell me why the Rhodesian Order is being discussed next week? Would it not be possible to postpone that until 5th November?

Mr. Foot: We have to have the Order carried through. I understand that there was a desire to have a debate on Rhodesia and I would have thought that there should not be a complaint on that score. I repeat, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question, that we are not reducing any opportunities for Scottish Questions. If there are representations to be made by my hon. Friends from Scotland, or from others, about the new Session we shall certainly take them into account.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I turn to the next business I ought to make clear what I said earlier. My agreement to what the Lord President said relates only to the order in which Members' Questions appear on the Order Paper. The departmental issue is nothing to do with me.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: To save time I will put the Question on the three motions relating to Statutory Instruments together, unless there is objection.

Ordered,
That the Fishing Nets (North East Atlantic) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1324), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Airways Board (Borrowing Powers) Order 1976, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Airways Board (Government Investment) Order 1976, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &amp;c.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL) PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, we are embarking on the Third Reading of this measure. It has not previously been before the House. The Bill has had no Second Reading in the Chamber. It was considered in principle in the Scottish Grand Committee and I assume that "in principle" means virtually a Second Reading.
I was not a member of the Scottish Grand Committee, although I believe that I could have been appointed to it had the Committee of Selection wished it. I made no application to the Committee. The advantage of a Second Reading of a Bill, I am sure you would agree, is that not only can a Member discuss what is in the Bill, but he can suggest what should be in the Bill. When it comes to a Third Reading, that is not the case. Is it possible, on this Third Reading, to look at the Bill in a broad Second Reading sense?

Mr. Speaker: I fear not. The Third Reading rules must be adhered to. It was open to the hon. Gentleman and his friends, if they felt strongly about this, to ensure that the Second Reading was held in the Chamber. It needed only 10 hon. Members to rise in their places. I must, therefore, observe the rules of the House.

4.7 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, the Third Reading having been moved formally, if I later pick up points made in the debate.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I feel that I should start by explaining that this Bill comes before the House for debate


on Third Reading because I and five of my colleagues tabled a motion to the effect that the Question be not put forthwith. This brings me to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). It was what I will call my general interest in the day's business which prompted me to look at the various Orders on the Paper. I must say that I was rather shocked when I looked at the first. It was because of my reaction that I tabled this motion. This is important in itself, but it also illustrates the kind of thing that is happening in the House these days.
This does not sound a very interesting Bill. I suppose that from the literary point of view it is not very interesting. But when we read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum we see that the purport of the Bill is to authorise the Scottish electricity boards to borrow up to a maximum of another £750 million.
Clause 2 authorises the Secretary of State to make advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of a wholly indeterminate sum which is, I will not say a forecast, but the figure of £200 million has been mentioned—with the caution that this is not an estimate but the sort of figure that might be reached on a fairly gloomy estimate. But it might also be exceeded. The Bill therefore authorises the contracting of loans up to £750 million and, in addition, expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of perhaps £200 million, but it might be more.
The Bill went straight to the Scottish Grand Committee where it would have obtained the attention of Scottish Members. Some English Members would be added to the Committee to redress the party balance. However, I have been one of those added Members in the past, and I know that such Members have to be very diligent to turn up and very brave to dare to speak. Therefore, the Bill did not have the attention of any but Scottish Members, and it then went to the First Scottish Standing Committe, where it had solely the attention of Scottish Members. But for my general interest in the day's proceedings, it would never have come on to the Floor of the House at all. That is wrong.
The view has obviously been taken that because the money will be spent in

Scotland the Bill is solely concerned with Scotland and is really for Scottish Members only to consider. But the money will be raised in the United Kingdom. Clause 2 refers to payments out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, as replenished by the National Loans Fund. This is a budgetary matter. The loan will not be raised in the constituency of the Minister of State, for example, or of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). When it comes to raising sums up to £750 million, the loan will not be floated, for example, in Dundee, East.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is possible. We have a money market.

Mr. Bell: There may be a money market in Dundee, East, but I doubt whether it would run to £750 million.
There are two ways in which that money can be raised. One is by internal borrowing in the United Kingdom money market, which in effect means London. If that happens, it enhances the competition for capital in the United Kingdom. We are all worried about the 15 per cent. minimum lending rate. The interest rate which prevails in a country reflects the balance of supply and demand for capital money. Every time the demand for capital is increased, interest rates are forced up.
Interest rates are not decided mainly upon political considerations. The country which has in mind more good causes than it can finance is inclined to have high interest rates. One of our problems since the war is that this country, and perhaps even the world generally, has had so many projects which might be described as well worth doing that there has been enormous competition for cash.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that interest rates are not decided only by the supply and demand of money? They are also partly determined by the Government of the day exercising their monopoly control over interest rates. The Government take into account both the internal rate of inflation and the external demand for money. While I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the factor he has described is one of the causes of high interest rates, I hope that he will agree that it is not the only cause.

Mr. Bell: I was not suggesting that it was the only cause. I was saying only, and particularly in relation to the sum in Clause 1, that not enough attention is given in the discussion to the role of the balance between supply and demand for capital money.
I should perhaps at this point make it clear that we are not actually talking about £750 million. The existing limit of £1,200 million under the current legislation has not yet been reached. The forecast has gone wrong. It will be reached a year earlier than was expected, and that is in about a year's time. We are therefore contemplating borrowing on the United Kingdom market perhaps £850 million, which even these days is quite a lot of money.
When I first began taking a practical interest in politics, the total national budget was only £600 million. Now in a Bill which was never to have come before the House, but was only to have been dealt with upstairs, it is proposed to authorise expenditure of nearly half as much again under Clauses 1 and 2.
I appreciate that we are talking about different sorts of pounds, but why are they different? They are different precisely because we embark upon these vast expenditures without bothering too much about them. Some hon. Members have asked me in the past few days "What is £800 million or £900 million in the context of the Government's present borrowing requirement?" But that is how the requirement builds up, and that is why the sum is regarded as so unimportant that the Bill should pass through two Committees and never bother to come on to the Floor of the House.
The alternative to the borrowing is that the moneys provided for in Clause 1 should be borrowed overseas on the Eurodollar market. We know that that is the idea. The money is borrowed abroad and thus adds to the overseas debt of the United Kingdom. It is not that the sum cannot be raised in Dundee, East, but that it cannot be raised in the United Kingdom either. It must be raised abroad. That brings us back to the balance of payments.
So much for the importance of the Bill and so much for the fortuitous trend of events by which it comes before the House.
I now turn briefly to its intrinsic significance. There is the Financial Memorandum and there was the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee to guide us. I doubt whether any but the Scottish Members knew until now, but the Bill is largely concerned with the development of an aluminium industry in Scotland. That may be an excellent thing. The Bill is also concerned with the generation of electricity from nuclear fuels in Scotland. That may or may not be a good thing. But what certainly emerges from it is that the forecasts made about the costs of both those undertakings were grotesquely wrong.
We are told something of the nature of the deficits which are accumulating. We are told, for example, that Clause 2 represents a revised estimate of the needs for electricity generation in Scotland, which is substantially lower than the original estimate. Then we are told that this is derived from a decision of the Government in 1967 that there should be a viable aluminium smelting industry in this country. I gather that in the short period since 1967 that particular operation has lost £40 million for the taxpayers. The deficit expected next year is £13,500,000 and there is hope that this will come down to a steady £2,500,000 a year by the beginning of the 1980s. I do not call that a viable aluminium smelting industry—I call that an industry which survives only because the Government are pumping the taxpayers' money into it at a pretty fantastic rate.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I think that the hon. and learned Member has made a quite unworthy comment. The aluminium smelting industry is an extremely worthy venture, and as far as taxpayers' money is concerned, I, for one, hope that taxation will be put into every worthwhile project. The first generation of an industrial base for the Highlands is extremely important and worth while.

Mr. Bell: I am not necessarily qualifying that. I do not really claim to have the prospectus to make the judgment necessary in order to reach a decision on whether this is justified. But I did pick out the phrase that the purpose was to establish "a viable aluminium industry." We are told by the Minister


responsible that there is now a deficit of £40 million in the smelters' account and that the total requirement is unlikely to be less than £100 million. Taking a gloomy view of the future, the total at the end of the day could reach or exceed £200 million. One can hardly describe that as a viable aluminium industry.
Let us look at the interest charges on £200 million. One does not need to assume a 15 per cent. rate of interest on this amount. One could be charitable and assume an average rate of interest at the end of the day of 10 per cent. That works out at £20 million a year, and it would have to be a very good aluminium smelter to run up £20 million a year to pay off its interest charges. Apart from this, there are the charges incurred on capital account by this enterprise.
We are told that this project has all gone rather sour financially for three reasons. The first is that Hunterston B, the power station on which it was to be based, in common with other AGR stations, has suffered problems in construction which have delayed its commissioning by three years. In this period electricity which should have come from Hunterston B has had to be supplied from alternative sources, and this has proved very expensive because of the steep rise in costs of oil and coal over the past three years.
The second reason is that although Hunterston B is now beginning to produce electricity, there is a possibility—and this is one of those most agreeable phrases—that the assumptions about the basic level of output on which the contract charges are based, which were reasonable in 1968, may now prove to be optimistic. That is a convoluted phrase but what it means is "It ain't as good as they thought it was". In addition to the losses already accumulated, therefore, losses may continue, albeit at a lower level, throughout the remaining period of the contract.
The third reason is that there is a further particular problem arising as a result of the risk of corrosion of boiler components, which may necessitate restriction of the operating temperature of the reactor and reduce the output of the station. The level of this so-called de-rating which may be necessary cannot be determined until the station has been

proved in operation over the next few years. Initially it is being operated at 20 per cent. de-rating while the level of corrosion is monitored, and thereafter it will be watched.
It was regarded as unreasonable that the British Aluminium Company should carry the loss resulting from that, and the subsequent increase in the cost of electricity provided, so the taxpayers have to carry it. Then, of course, we have the cautionary comment in the White Paper about the best estimates which can be made by the board, but the Minister emphasised that these were no more than an indication. For this reason he did not feel able to insert a financial limit in the Bill. Instead, each payment will be prescribed by an Order, subject to affirmative resolution by the House.
I emphasise that this is Clause 2 to which I am referring, not Clause 1. Clause 1 authorises extra capital borrowing of £750 million. Clause 2 is a direct payment out of the Exchequer annually to finance the borrowing deficit.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Perhaps it might help the hon. and learned Gentleman in his consideration of the Bill if he looks at the Second Reading speech that I made in Scottish Grand Committee when I indicated that the borrowing of Clause 1 is in two stages and that hon. Members will have the opportunity to come back once again and review this.

Mr. Bell: I have been reading extracts from the Minister's Second Reading speech in the Scottish Grand Committee; but I am talking about Clause 2. If I have given the impression by implication that the whole of the £750 million increase of Clause 1 is subject to that order of affirmative resolution, I will correct that. But I am talking about Clause 2, where there is no financial limit at all and the matter is dealt with by an order subject to affirmative resolution.
If the Bill had never come before the House of Commons at all, but had been dealt with totally in Committee, what sort of safeguard would there be in these orders? We all know the amount of paper descending on hon. Members from all directions. We are deluged with it, especially with EEC documents adding to everything else. The amount of documentation teaching us every morning is


beyond digestion, and when hon. Members see something which appears to relate solely to a Scottish financial provisions Bill, it is not surprising that they do not give it much attention.
It has been said that there was good reason for having consideration of this Bill elsewhere, and I do not dispute that. It may well be so. But this is a United Kingdom Exchequer liability on the current account side and it is a straightforward payment from it.
The Minister is right to say that the figure in Clause 1 is a bracket. I think that the old bracket was £650 million to £1,200 million. The new bracket is £1,200 million to £1,950 million. The amount that can be borrowed without the Minister's coming to the House again goes up from £650 million to £1,200 million. The maximum figure of £1,200 million in the 1947 Act will be exhausted in about a year's time. When we have gone above the new unconditional £1,200 million, the Minister has to return to the House for an order for the remaining £750 million. There is an increase of £550 million in the basic figure and the maximum figure has gone up by £750 million. If that is the history of the Bill, why should we regard the so-called safeguard on the capital borrowing account as of any great value?
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) made the fair comment that the smelter was valuable for the development of Scotland, particularly the Highlands of the north. It is probably fair to add that it has been hoped that the enterprise will have a certain trigger effect and lead to some proliferation of industry and increased employment in the North and West of Scotland. I do not feel able to weigh one fact against the other—the financial burden and the possible ultimate advantage to the Scottish economy.
My first point was my absolute astonishment that a Bill of this magnitude and significance was to slip through with no debate on the Floor of the House, without most hon. Members even knowing that it existed. Secondly, I wish to express my considerable anxiety about the number of such schemes where the estimates have been hopelessly adrift and the loss to the taxpayer in relation to the size of the scheme has been astronomi-

cal, and where for as far ahead as one can see there will be a very big continuing loss on the operating, current revenue side from 1967 or 1968—£40 million and, it is believed, another £160 million to come, making £200 million—and a borrowing requirement of a staggering magnitude.
The public sector borrowing requirement is running at about £12,000 million and the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to bring it down—with what success I do not know—to £9,000 million a year. I do not see its coming down if this kind of thing is to go on. Everybody has his pet project and is inclined to say of it that the money will be well spent. But a sufficient accumulation of pet projects and money from the taxpayer well spent is enough to drag down any country, to push up its interest rates and push it to the point where its burden of overseas interest and the general burden of internal interest is so great that all enterprise and investment are stifled.
The Minister of State should explain where he sees the light at the end of the tunnel in respect of these projects and how he establishes the balance—it may be a favourable balance, although I do not see it—between the social and economic advantages to Scotland in the long term and the undoubtedly heavy capital and current commitment involved in the financial provision of the Bill. I am glad to think that I have perhaps torn him away from some other activities this afternoon and given him the opportunity to give that explanation in this public place.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) made a valuable point when he said, to put it shortly, that the money to be paid out under Clause 2 is to be paid out exclusively in Scotland—in fact, to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board—but is raised from the United Kingdom taxpayer, whether he lives in Scotland, England or Wales and presumably Northern Ireland, although I do not quite know the Northern Ireland financial situation these days. If it is not to be raised from the United Kingdom taxpayer, it is to be obtained on his credit if overseas borrowing is made but it is to be paid out exclusively to Scotland or Scottish interests.
Clause 2 is intended to reimburse the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for extra expense it has incurred in supporting, through a lower rate for electricity, the aluminium smelter project at Invergordon. If it is a sound principle to reimburse the electricity authorities in such circumstances, after the passage of eight years or so since the project was conceived, at the expense of the United Kingdom taxpayer or on his credit, then I suggest all the electricity authorities in the United Kingdom should be treated in the same way.
The idea of making a marriage between aluminium smelting in the more difficult employment areas and electricity generation from the nuclear fission process was one to be applied as widely as possible at the time of its conception. The Central Electricity Generating Board was as involved as the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. The CEGB, which is responsible for the wholesale supply of electricity and its transmission south of the border, was asked to supply electricity at a special reduced rate based on the expected costs of nuclear power generation. I do not think that it was anxious to do it. but it was placed under Government pressure to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), then Prime Minister, was particularly keen on the idea. In the CEGB case the generation source selected was Dungeness B nuclear station to supply electricity for an aluminium smelter at Anglesey in Wales through the grid, a somewhat artificial approach.
Therefore, on the principle of not making fish of one and fowl of another, if the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, has a claim for recompense, surely that makes the Ceneral Electricity Generating Board equally entitled. If we are talking about Dungeness B and basing the electricity price on its output, I am afraid that it has taken much longer to bring that station into use than the station as Hunterston.
It could hardly have taken longer as Dungeness B is not yet operating. There have been tremendous technical difficulties and costs have mounted year after year. So some public explanation should be given of the different treatment of the electricity authorities in Scotland as

against England, and, indirectly, the different treatment of the electricity consumer in the two countries—that is what it amounts to in the end.
I have done my small best to probe this matter. I tried to get a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. After all, it is his writ ministerially which operates south of the border. I tried to obtain information about the Anglesey aluminium smelter agreement. I shall not weary the House with the matter, but there is still a great deal of secrecy about the agreement. The contract is between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Anglesey Smelter Company, which I believe is a face organisation for one of the large international aluminium combinations. The terms of the contract have never been made public. The only information I could obtain on its duration from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was that the contract runs for an unusually long term. I suspect that the use of those words means that it is for a very long term indeed.
I tried to find out whether the Central Electricity Generating Board has protested to the Government about the difference in treatment between United Kingdom electricity authorities. I have been told that it has protested but to no avail. It seems that the Government have ignored CEAB protests. I shall quote the last paragraph of the statement which was given to me by my right hon. Friend. It states:
As a result of the increasing capital cost of Dungeness B, the delay in its commissioning, and the prospect of derating"—
that is the same difficulty as with the Hunterston B station—
when it comes into operation, the agreement is working out unsatisfactorily from CEGB's point of view, but such a phase is a normal risk with a commercially negotiated long-term contract.
That is sheer rubbish. The Central Electricity Generating Board really had no option. Its members are appointed in the same way as those in other public corporations, that is, by the Minister. Therefore, when the Government asked them to enter into a contract they could not approach it in a genuinely commercial way. They could not say "We do not think that it will pay us over the years." That is unsatisfactory and for


myself I believe that the agreement should not have been entered into if the result would be to put publicly-owned electricity supply authorities at a disadvantage for many years.
Nevertheless, it sems that the agreement was very much to the commercial advantage of the aluminium company, which is an enterprise well able to take care of itself financially. In the end it means that the electricity consumer and the taxpayer has been helping out financially an international aluminium combine. No doubt it did not particularly wish to go to Anglesey, but having been induced to go there is made certain that the Government paid it well for doing so.
It would be interesting for the House to investigate through a Select Committee just how much aluminium has been produced at Anglesey. Also it would be interesting to investigate how many jobs have come about as a result of this arrangement and how much money has been loaded on to the electricity consumer under the guise of the board entering into a commercial agreement.
I can see no reason for the terms of the agreement not being made public. Surely they should be made public. However, I confine myself now to raising a point, thanks to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield who has ensured for the first time that the whole House has been able to probe these matters. Why, if it is right to reimbuse the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, is it not equally right, on the same principle, to reimbuse the Central Electricity Generating Board? Surely the House deserves some explanation of the discrimination.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall be brief because I do not seek to delay the House in its consideration of other legislation.
I am not privileged to be a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. I hasten to add that that is not a privilege that I seek. Like most privileges that come my way, I give notice that I should reject it if it were offered to me. I always think that others are more worthy of such privileges.
I ask the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) to forgive me if I do not take up the energy industry ramifications. Undoubtedly the hon. Gentleman is an expert on those matters whereas I am an undoubted ignoramus. I should add nothing to the discussions by trying to take up those issues.
I commend my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) for raising this matter for public debate. We in this place, especially at this time, owe something to those who sent us here to raise a note of public caution whenever any Department says "We should like another borrowing requirement of £750 million for this part of our work"—that is in Clause 1—"and perhaps £200 million taxation for other matters"—namely, those in Clause 2.
Never mind my hon. and learned Friend's recollection of when he entered politics: it was as recently as 1964 that the country was so appalled at the thought that we had a balance of payments deficit of £800 million that it decided to elect a Labour Government. Therefore, a £750 million borrowing requirement is not to be sneezed at as a paltry sum, especially at this time.
My main reason for supporting my hon. and learned Friend is that if ever there were a time when we should display attitudes of conservancy, economy and alarm at suggestions of increased expenditure it is now. Whether we like it or not, and whatever the differences between one side of the House and the other on policy, the country is sinking economically. However, we are proposing a measure that will increase, to some extent, the pressure of inflation.
We do not borrow £750 million without increasing the national borrowing requirement. That is something that we can ill afford to do. We have had plenty of debates on this issue and we shall continue to have them until the Government give way. We are trying to force the Government to cut public expenditure, and that means reducing the borrowing requirement.
The Government must realise that what we borrow will have to be paid back with interest by the taxpayer. We are debating a branch of the British economy that is not making a profit. Under Clause 2 these deficits will have to be taken


directly from the taxpayer. Undoubtedly that means a reduction in the amount of money that can be spent on behalf of the taxpayer on other social needs, and there are plenty of those on the priority list.
I think it excellent that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, with great assiduity and care, spends time reading Bills which would otherwise not see the light of public debate here. If ever there were a measure calculated to encourage right hon. and hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies to deal with their correspondence or to attend their various meetings in other parts of the building, a Bill entitled the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill is it.
I concede—again, because there are those wiser and better than I who think that it is important—the necessity, if the money be available, for these enterprises in Scotland to have the proposed facilities. No doubt, there will be longterm benefits to Scotland which would please us all, but the present competition for scarce monetary resources is very substantial, and my hon. Friends and I want to sound notes of caution. We want to be satisfied that the increase in the borrowing requirement is justified at this time.
So long as it is easy for enterprises of this kind to come to the House, through the Scottish Grand Committee and our other procedures, to ask for an expansion of borrowing facilities or for a tax upon the taxpayer, so long will it be easy for them not to apply their minds to more stringent processes of cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we must never make it easy for them. We must make it difficult for them, for in the last resort we are the protectors of the public purse. That is what we are here for.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that there is no sloppy attitude towards finances on the part of any organisation, be it State or quasi-State, connected in any way with this enterprise in Scotland, that the proposed burden upon the borrowing requirement is the absolute minimum, and that the burden upon the taxpayer is the absolute minimum. I want an assurance that every possible effort is being made by all parties to make sure that they do not have to come again to

the House and ask for still more money or a still wider borrowing requirement, which in the end means still more money.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am pleased to be able to take part in this Third Reading debate. Representing a Scottish constituency, I was fortunate in being able to attend the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, but the two points which have emerged on this occasion—at some length, if I may say so—merit comment.
We have provision in the House for Members from all areas to take part in discussion on Scottish affairs, though I agree that it is a blocking provision in that one can, if one wishes, make such debates take place on the Floor of the House. However, if it is a significant subject, and revenue-raising is a significant matter, attention should be paid to it. The arrangements are there, and all one can recommend is that in future hon. Members should perhaps pay a little more attention to them.
I think that part of the reason for the question being raised in this way—I do not recall its being raised previously—is the present political climate in the country, and I have no doubt that one of the reasons for that climate is the concentration on the position of Scotland and the feeling that, although the Scots may wish to go their own way to an extent, or their own way completely, hon. Members here nevertheless have an interest and concern, and we ought not to treat one human being south of the border differently from the way we treat another human being north of the border.
I concur in that principle, and I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will, too, though I have no great hope of that. However, that would certainly be my position, and I believe that in the present developments in Scotland most decent Scottish people would not wish to seek unfair advantages over others in a similar situation elsewhere in Britain.
The principal purpose of the Bill, however, was not based primarily upon the revenue problem. The object is to provide the right amount of electricity generation and to improve the generating system in Scotland in order to supply


energy, energy for Scottish needs or energy to serve needs elsewhere. It is not surprising, therefore, that the matter was dealt with in the Scottish Grand Committee. Indeed, I think that that was appropriate.
In passing, I wish to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) about the difference of treatment between our aluminium smelter in the North and the smelter in Anglesey. I do not intend to pursue inquiries about the nature of the agreements made, but I am surprised to learn that a similar provision was sought for Anglesey, too and refused. To the extent that we claim certain privileges or at least certain differences of treatment for ourselves in Scotland, we should at the same time be as keen as others to ensure that those differences or advantages are applied to other areas in need.
Equally, to the extent that we have a Scottish Grand Committee with the right to discuss such matters, or we want a Scottish Assembly with a right of discussion—or, in the view of the hon. Member for Dundee, East, there should be a separate Scottish country with a right of discussion—we should at the same time be eager that an even-handed justice prevails, because, if it does not, the backlash will be helpful neither to us in Scotland nor to England.
The matter before us is of particular interest because those of us who supported the Bill and the extension of borrowing powers did so because we felt that it was necessary for employment and future industrial purposes in Scotland. Therefore, although I find it interesting, I totally reject the suggestion that there is somehow a vast expenditure going on here which will he worthless. The argument used by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that in some way this proposal runs counter to the needs of the country today, because of our financial situation, cannot be sustained. On the contrary: these provisions are necessary precisely because of our financial situation. The hon. and learned Gentleman looked at the matter entirely from the point of view of borrowing money and not from the point of view of what the industry or country requires.
The Government's present strategy—as hon. Members know, I do not agree with their strategy in economic policy—is directed to cutting expenditure on the social services, and other public expenditure of that kind, in order to release resources for manufacturing industry, and I had assumed that that strategy was not just supported but was enthusiastically supported to the point of over-kill by the Tory Party. Now, however, when we reach the point of seeking to use some of the resources which are being saved by a standstill in the social services precisely to put them into energy production in order to increase manufacturing capacity, the Tories object.
Moreover, they object for a simple dogmatic and ideological reason, since the Tory Party calls for cuts of about £10,000 million in the social services, with consequent effects on old-age pensioners and the disabled, cuts in council housing, schools and the rest, so long as the money released is slanted towards private manufacturing. What gets under the Tories' skin is that the purpose here is to direct resources towards public manufacturing in the form of electricity generation, which, thank heaven, is in the hands of the people of this country and not those who share the views of some hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Clause 2 makes clear—indeed, I think that it is made clear in the Explanatory Memorandum, or, if not, it was certainly in the Minister's Second Reading speech—that the money is wanted to pay for the deficits of the electricity board in supplying current to the privately owned British Aluminium Company. I do not say that it is entirely a subsidy paid to that company, but it is a kind of subsidy because it was asked to go where it would otherwise not have gone. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. I intervene, because he has taken me to task on a narrow financial approach to the subject, to ask whether he would explain the nature of the benefit which he expects to arise socially and economically in Scotland, despite the fact that the Minister looks forward to this enterprise, which has lost £40 million, losing another £160 million over the coming years?

Mr. Buchan: The main clause is Clause 1 which provides a general increase in expenditure which, apart from


supporting the public sector, will also maintain the private sector. I take up the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in order that he may teach some of his hon. Friends. It is often on expenditure in the public sector that the private sector depends. Therefore, the Opposition should stop their continued demands for cuts of £10,000 million. They have created a bogy in the public mind of the public sector drawing in money, whereas the poor old private sector, which would love to help us all, cannot get under way. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that ordinary workers are paying taxes to buttress the private sector. I am glad that he has made or reinforced my point.

Sir John Hall: As I have just come into the Chamber, I must apologise for not having heard the early part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he believe that it is right to subsidise private industry in this way? I am against subsidising private industry. It does not seem a reasonable approach that figures of this kind should be made available so that electrical power can be obtained below normal cost. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Mr. Buchan: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber a little earlier. I hesitate to give way to him because he had only just arrived. That was in some ways a side issue, but it was dealt with at some length by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. I was not keen on being side-tracked. The answer is that, so long as we have and maintain a mixed economy, I am in favour of the Government, where necessary, in the interests of the country, helping to support private industry, especially when we cannot persuade it for other reasons to come to some of our regions. I should have preferred the aluminium smelter to be owned by the people of this country who are helping to finance it. However, in their wisdom, Governments of both parties, have not chosen that course. Above all, I certainly prefer to have jobs rather than no jobs. It means a great deal to people in the Highlands. I was born in that area which was devastated by those who were on those Benches opposite in the previous century.
I now turn to the expansion of the generating programme in Scotland. I

represent the area which has the main boilermaking factory in Scotland—Babcock and Wilcox. That factory employs 5,000 workers. If we do not have a generating programme, many of those workers will be out of work starting in the middle of next year. The problem does not stop there. Within three years, with the present programme, they will all be out of work. The rub-off of a complete closure of Babcock & Wilcox would be that about 22,000 to 24,000 workers throughout Scotland—mainly in the West of Scotland—and in parts of the rest of the United Kingdom would be paid off. The consequences are immense. Therefore, the Bill is required to begin to introduce more money into the generating programme.
Again, the problem does not stop there. In this kind of industry, as with Clarke Chapman in England, the levels of technology are extremely high. Babcock and Wilcox is going into new boundaries of technological development in high pressure vessels. For example, the welding skills are unique in the world. Advice is given by technologists in that factory to other factories throughout the world. The skills of the welders in this new plateau of technology are applied in the oil industry. Therefore, the technology itself will also be destroyed.
I understand that if we keep to the present programme, it is argued that we can pick it up again in the 1980s when we shall require a new power station. Workers, middle management and top management recognise that there is over capacity at the moment. But if we wait until there is a demand for a big expansion in generating capacity in the mid or early 1980s, not only the workers, but the industry itself will have gone. There will be no means whereby in eight to 10 years we shall be able to reopen and start again. We shall be 10 years behind in technology, and the highly specialised skills will have been lost. We shall not be abe to reopen at that stage without another five years of building up the necessary skills. We shall need to import foreign technology, if we can get it. Therefore, it is essential that we bring forward the generating programme. It is no use thinking in terms of five to 10 years. We must plan ahead 25 years and phase forward the programme. In that way we can save our industry.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a sounder base to the developing industry of Scotland would be if coal-burning generation were given much greater emphasis? Here is a real risk for that derivative industry in which the hon. Gentleman is interested, because of the uncertainty and disappointment of the AGR station.

Mr. Buchan: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had allowed me to continue, I should have said something not dissimilar. I have been arguing—it has been publicly recorded—about the importance of bringing forward a new coal-fired power station in Britain. But that is not sufficient. I should like a decision to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on which kind of reactor programme we should be going for. I favour the AGR, despite some of the past difficulties. It is not surprising that some corrosion, and other problems, has developed, because we are dealing with a totally new ball game. Despite that, I prefer the AGR.
Of course, the key requirement is a coal-fired power station. We have resources of that fossil fuel for centuries ahead. But the oil, as Professor Macrae of Broadford University suggested, whatever the predictable levels of consumption and exploitation of reserves, will almost certainly be finished by the end of the century. Hence, everything points to coal. We are trying to save an industry in Britain.
In that context I am irritated by the Tories, but never surprised. However, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), the spokesman for the Scottish National Party, chose to use the opportunity of the debate on principle and of the Committee stage to question the need for any development of the generating programme in Scotland. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman questioned going ahead with Torness. At column 7 in Committee and at column 25 in the debate on principle, the hon. Gentleman argued for a pull-back in the programme and in the Torness power station which, by definition, would push the start of the whole power station development programme beyond the 1980s and almost into the 1990s. That would close Babcock and Wilcox tomorrow.
When we have a rally in defence of the factory in my area, I resent hearing some SNP members, no doubt in ignorance of the hon. Gentleman's own speeches on the subject, arguing the matter on a Scottish basis when they themselves are seeking to prevent the programme of generation taking place. Talk about being anti-Scottish—scratch a Scottish Nationalist and one finds this kind of nonsense.
Secondly, while pretending to support the Babcock and Wilcox workers, the SNP is making demands for a separate Scotland. I have a simple lesson for the hon. Gentleman. If we had a separate Scotland, Babcock and Wilcox would close tomorrow, because the main customer of the boilermaking industry is the Government's generating programme. Our main customer is the Central Electricity Generating Board. Without the Government as our customer, we cannot exist. We close tomorrow. We cannot exist with the bits and pieces of diversified work that we are doing, or by the exports that we are trying to achieve, important as they are. In order to survive we require the orders that come from the Government and the nationalised CEGB.
By definition, if we cut off Scotland from England, an English generating programme from a nationalised board would have to go to English firms—in the same way as the hon. Member for Dundee, East demands that orders from the Scottish Office or a future Scottish Government should go to a Scottish factory. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman would cut us off from nine-tenths of our programme—and on only one-tenth we would die.

Mr. Palmer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not overlook the fact that the electricity supplies of Scotland and England are fully integrated and that electricity flows both ways. Does he think that the SNP would cut the lines at the border?

Mr. Buchan: To be fair, I do not think that the Scottish people would allow the SNP to be as crazy as that. However, in the process of the hon. Gentleman's questioning of our energy policy, he was complaining about the fact that it might be helping to produce energy in Scotland in order for that to be sent to England. I do not know how crazy one can get. It is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The hon.


Gentleman wants to cut off the energy production and the employment that this would mean for Scotland to prevent it from going to England. I do not think that he would physically use his scissors to cut the cables. However, he is using his political position to do precisely that. Therefore, I resent it and I reject it.
It is even more stupid in a way. I do not blame SNP Members for their stupidity. Their views come from a dogma, a kind of curious chauvinism, but the conclusions are stupid even if SNP Members are not. The argument is that the Scottish generating programme is over-large already. The hon. Member for Dundee, East said:
we have sufficient capacity to meet our needs."—[Official Report, Scottish Standing Committee, 6th July, 1976; c. 7.]
In other words, the hon. Gentleman has analysed matters not only from the point of view of refusing to sell to England but from the point of view that the Scottish requirements do not require a new station at Torness or the other developments. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell his friends elsewhere in Scotland to be a little more careful with their honeyed words of support for the Babcock and Wilcox workers. Will the hon. Gentleman repudiate or withdraw his statement? Will he do one or the other thing—either reject his policies as enunciated in the debate on the principle and enunciated in Committee, or say openly that he seeks the death of Babcock and Wilcox? He has no other choice, and I wish that he would make up his mind.
Finally, I think that the Bill is necessary not only in the Highland situation but for those who have some faith in the future of Scotland. Those who have faith in the future of Scotland are not the doctrinaires of the SNP but the ordinary working people of Scotland, on whom our strength and future must depend.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: When I heard of the intention of certain English Members to take over the debate on a Scottish measure, my first reaction was one of irritation, particularly as I had understood that the reason for so doing was not out of any interest in the legislation concerned but, rather, in pro-

tracting the business of the House so that the legislation on seat belts would be taken at a very late hour. On the other hand, having heard the comments made by English Members, I must say that they have been reasonably brief and fairly open minded in the way in which they have approached the Bill.
For perhaps the only time in this debate I can echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) when he said that for English Members who wished to be involved in Scottish legislation—I should prefer them not to be involved—the rules of the House laid down the ways in which they may do so. For instance, objection to a Bill being dealt with in the Scottish Grand Committee can be made by a certain number of Members rising in their places. Only recently the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who has a double interest in the Bill in view of his constituency interests, stood un along with others and blocked two Scottish Bills that were to be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee, with the effect, as we heard from the Leader of the House, that they will be discussed on the Floor of the House in about 10 days' time.
When the Scottish Grand Committee has completed consideration of a Bill in principle, it reports to the House, and it is then open for a vote to take place. Admittedly, no debate would occur in those circumstances. However, I think that it is accepted that those English Members who wish to he members of the Scottish Grand Committee, in the absence of many volunteers, would he accepted. I can only hope that those who have taken part in this debate have shown by their interest in Scottish affairs that they wish to be included when the Whips come to make their choice in future.
The idea of Scottish business being taken outside the realms of this House is one that will have to be appreciated if the Government's devolution plans go ahead. The Scottish electricity industry is already under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish Assembly will have an interest in it. Unfortunately, the nationalised industries will not go to the Assembly, so that this House, whatever else happens in the devolution debate, is still likely


to have an interest in generation matters in Scotland. Many other matters will go from the Floor of this House and not be dealt with here thereafter. Hon. Members will have to accept that that is part and parcel of devolved Government.
Likewise, I can make this point in relation to the aluminium industry. When I stretch my memory back to when I was not a Member of this House, I seem to remember that the reason for the aluminium smelters being created in the United Kingdom was to help the balance of payments. That was the commercial reason for going ahead. This led to a secondary consideration. That was the division of the giant smelter that I think had been envisaged into three, which were then located in different areas.
If the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, in its wisdom at the time, entered into an arrangement with the Government of the day that it should be recompensed for any loss made on a contract, it ought to be congratulated. If the Central Electricity Generating Board, in turn, did not make such an arrangement with the Government, it ought to be criticised. If the Government had not made the promise that it did make to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, it ought to be condemned. If English Members feel that the Government made a promise in the past to the CEGB, they should condemn the Government for their actions. It is certainly not for Scottish Members to do the work of English Members.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman is complaining that we are not doing it, and here we are, making a complaint, and he resents it. The balance of payments is a valid point. The estimate is that this saves £20 million a year on the balance of payments. However, when that is set against a borrowing, in total, of £1,950 million, it looks like an awfully bad bargain.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that point although I am sure that the workers in Ross and Cromarty might perhaps take a different view. However, the fact that the Government of the day made a bad bargain in financial terms is something which should perhaps be considered.
It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) suggest that a Select Committee ought to be set up to examine the position. I made the proposal in the Scottish Grand Committee that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should look into the Scottish electricity position, but not to deal with the same subject as that which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East has mentioned.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the wisdom of the North of Scotland Board in making a special arrangement with the Government. If he examines the situation he will find that exactly the same arrangements were reached between the Government and the electricity authority at the time. It is clear that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is included in the legislation but the CEGB is not.

Mr. Wilson: A special proposition which ought to be looked at in relation to this is that the power stations effectively supplying the power will be based in the South of Scotland area because the pricing would be based upon the Hunterston B rower station, whereas the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board would have very little control over the pricing. However, I do not think we ought to spend too much time on this issue, particularly since it was discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee.
I would have liked to take this opportunity of posing a few questions to the Minister but, in his absence, I would hope that the Scottish Whip will be able to perform that service in an excellent fashion. The questions are, first, what delay will occur in relation to Torness because of the dispute over the SGHW reactor? Is the time scale affected? When we discussed this matter in Committee, whatever points were put to the Minister about the SGHWR position he skipped over them and indicated that there was no problem at that time, whereas most of us knew that serious doubts were then arising. However, the time scale is of particular interest to the lion. Member for Renfrewshire, West because, naturally, if there is a prolonged dispute over the type of technology then the order for a power station will be delayed. That is quite separate from whether consumption and time factors are involved.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is now beginning to make some sensible comments. There would be no such delay if a decision were made to continue with the AGR programme rather than adopting a new technology for the steam heavy water generator. One solution would be to bring forward a coal fired station and an AGR, which would give time for the Secretary of State to make the right kind of decision about a long-term nuclear programme.

Mr. Wilson: Leaving aside the offensive comment, which I should have expected from the hon. Gentleman, if he will take the time and trouble to study the speech that I made in Committee he will find that reference was made to the possibilities of fossil fuel power stations. That leads me to the point that we have no figures about power consumption in Scotland. The object of my exercise in Committee was to get some indication from the Government about what the prospects were for increases in consumption. I am still waiting for that information, but both boards have reduced their estimates from 6 per cent. to 5 per cent. growth. That figure in turn differs from the CEGB figure. I still think that the House is entitled to an answer on that question.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I shall not take any further interventions from the hon. Gentleman. I have taken several so far.
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the intention of building a pumped storage power station at Craigroyston. It is mentioned in the report published by the electricity boards in Scotland, but it was then indicated as being a fairly long-term proposition. Recently, however, the hydro-electric board has produced further outlines in relation to it, and has indicated that the commissioning time would be about 10 years before the go-ahead was given. When is it likely that that particular power station will be given the go-ahead, because that, too, will certainly have an effect on the capacity of the electricity industry?

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman but I would remind him that we are on the Third Reading.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, indeed. As I understand it the Third Reading of the Bill relates to the clauses in the Bill. One of the clauses contains a proposal to increase the borrowing powers of the electricity boards. Since so many other hon. Members have raised matters which are not directly connected with the Bill, it is pertinent to ask the Minister what that money will be used for. Will it be used at Craigroyston and when?
As I was saying before the Minister got to his feet, the decision to go ahead with Craigroyston could have an effect on the overall capacity of the electricity industry in Scotland and, indeed, on the capacity of Babcock and Wilcox mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West. [Interruption.] I was trying to ignore the comments of the hon. Gentleman because they are not worthy of a Member of Parliament. I quite frankly said in Committee that the hon. Gentleman did not seem to follow the argument at all in relation to patterns of consumption and demand in Scotland. However, if he wishes to ignore such important matters, that is for him.
In his comments in relation to Babcock and Wilcox it seemed that he was more concerned about maintaining his own job as Member of Parliament than he was at keeping the jobs of the members of the work force at that firm. I would point out what the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday. He said that in addition to the Scottish situation, the British situation was improved, and that exporting from Britain was an important consideration if the future of Babcock and Wilcox were to be safeguarded.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West will know that the latest export order which went to Babcock and Wilcox went to the German factory. Babcock and Wilcox is a multinational company and it would be well for the hon. Gentleman to address some of his argument to the company in relation to its exporting policy. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is serious in his insinuations that Babcock and Wilcox is an inefficient company, uncompetitive, unable to tender for business in Scotland, or in the United Kingdom and abroad, and to get it. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman's position, and he should have much more


confidence in the skills of the men, and the ability of the management, to help the company out of its difficult position.

Mr. Buchan: I have.

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware the decision which is coming up in relation to Babcock is unlikely to be solved by the Scottish ordering position because the Torness site is being delayed. He should have asked the Minister when that order was to be given the go-ahead. The hon. Gentleman may well be right in relation to the SGHW technology, but again that was a matter which I discussed in Committee and on which the hon. Gentleman was silent.
Finally, I would commend the Bill. I think that had the Government not kept their bargain in relation to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board in particular it would have been a very bad thing indeed, particularly for my constituents who would then have had to pay for the cost of subsidising an aluminium smelter which was of no immediate benefit to them. It has been argued that the smelter was of national benefit. I presume that that is the reasoning behind the Government subsidy for the whole project. I suppose at the end of the day, whatever the Government may think in relation to the smelter, that there is a contract. The Government have to honour their word and fulfil that contract even if they may have made a bad deal.
I have felt many times in considering the Bill that it is a pity that there was no parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangement for the smelter when it was first set up. I know that questions were probably asked, but it should have received detailed scrutiny four or five years ago and not now.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I do not propose to make a long speech today. I spoke for almost half an hour on the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee and as it was not amended in Committee I should merely be repeating what I said then.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) will return, because I have an explanation that I should like him to hear. It

is significant that anyone who wishes to take part in a debate on legislation can do so. We are all grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving us that opportunity today by putting down the motion.
However, I would take issue with my hon. and learned Friend on his suggestion that there had been some Scottish conspiracy to push this measure through without other United Kingdom Members being able to comment. He has every right to rise in his place when any Bill is called to ensure that it is debated on the Floor of the House and does not go to the Scottish Grand Committee.
I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has just come back. We are indebted to him for his motion, but I was suggesting that his insinuation of a Scottish conspiracy to push the Bill through is misplaced.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I did not use the word "conspiracy", of course, and I did not wish to imply anything of that kind. I said, indeed, that it was perhaps natural that it should be assumed that this was a matter of entirely Scottish interest because the money would be all spent in Scotland, but that the United Kingdom interest was an important one because the money would be found from this end. I had no intention of criticising anyone on either side of the House. I think that I referred to it as a rather bad habit that we get into because of the deluge of paper which overwhelms us and which means that some of these things often do not get the attention they deserve on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Gray: I take the point and I will not dwell further on that matter. If my hon. and learned Friend reads my Second Reading speech he will see that I made the very point that sometimes, probably because of inflation, we tend to talk of sums like £600 million or £700 million as if they were unimportant. But we are all grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his contribution.
The official Opposition attitude to the Bill is one of acceptance. We did not oppose it on Second Reading and we discussed it at considerable length in Committee. We wish it well and hope that it will be given a Third Reading in a few minutes.
As a constituency Member, I lived in the Highlands in 1967 when discussions were taking place about the possibility of an aluminium smelter being sited at Invergordon. As I recall it, there were two competitors—British Aluminium and Alcan. Whether the project ever went through depended largely on the terms on which the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board could supply electricity. I think that BA managed to do a very good business deal with the board.
As a good Conservative, I say good luck to the company. It managed to obtain terms from the board which it thought made it economically possible for it to go to that area. In addition, of course, development area status meant considerable Government assistance. I have always believed in development area status for certain parts of the country. Otherwise, everything would simply he located in the South-East of England; those of us who live and work here see the results of such decisions daily. If development area status had been introduced a long time ago, we might not have the present frightful congestion in the South-East.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned accounts. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) put down an amendment in Committee to try to ensure that more information was obtained. In answering the debate, the Minister explained that it was very difficult in the board's accounts to set out everything related to the smelter without revealing commercial confidentiality regarding the terms originally negotiated.
I accept that, although I agree with those who still have reservations about the way in which the accounts are set out. I hope that the board, whose representatives will unquestionably read these debates, will take note of that and that a system will be devised to give us a little more information in due course.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) also took part in the debate and that even my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) made an intervention.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), to whom we always listen with interest in energy debates, naturally drew attention to the terms obtained in connection with the Anglesey

project. Like the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), I feel that it is a pity that the advantage obtained by BA in the north of Scotland was not extended to that project as well. But that was a matter for negotiation.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, in one of his exchanges with the hon. Member for Dundee, East, mentioned people throughout the United Kingdom benefiting from the things available in one particular area. The result achieved by the then Secretary of State for Scotland in getting the BA smelter to come to the Highlands is significant in terms of devolution. There is no doubt that his influence at Cabinet level gained for Scotland something which it might not have had without his voice.
I will not try to answer all the points raised because I am sure the Minister will try to do so. But it is sometimes very easy for hon. Members representing constituencies in the South-East of England to fail to appreciate the great difficulty experienced in the past by certain areas of Scotland in trying to attract industry.
The whole question of development status and of companies being able to obtain grants by going to certain parts of the country must essentially be part of a pattern laid down by the Government in order to try to spread more evenly the benefits of development and not to concentrate them in one area. In a certain way, this Bill does just that. But the one point that my hon. Friends who have tended to criticise the Bill forget is that the Government have little or no option but to do exactly what they are doing in this Bill, because a commercial contract was entered into. If the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board is to honour that contract, the Government must be prepared to back it in this Bill.
I hope that the House will see fit to give the Bill its Third Reading. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield for his initiative in putting down the Third Reading motion so that hon. Members sitting for non-Scottish seats could have an opportunity to discuss the Bill.

5.41 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): The important point made by the hon. Member for


Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), which is what we as Scottish Members are particularly concerned about—although I know that others share that concern—is that the Bill is part of the wider interest we have in the improvement of life in Scotland and more particularly our attitude to employment there.
I think that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) was taking me to task in his concluding remarks by suggesting that I did not altogether welcome his motion for a Third Reading debate. He said that I might well want to be elsewhere. There are, I concede, times when hon. Members do want to be elsewhere. I could well want to be in Scotland now, as he will understand.
I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously that, to many of us in this House who are dedicated to the proposition that we should retain the unity of the United Kingdom, it is important that hon. Members, no matter from which area of the country they come, should take part in deliberations of this kind. For example, in the past, as a Back-Bench Member or as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, I have spoken on things that have happened south of the border. I do not see the border in Iron Curtain terms. I am always willing to listen to comments made by hon. Members from different parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for saying that. Indeed, it is the United Kingdom consideration which is pre-eminent. Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that many of those who live south of the border and perhaps represent constituencies in South-East England have originated north of the border and are only English Members representing English constituencies because there was no such development north of the border in the past and our forebears did not have much choice but to come south?

Mr. MacKenzie: I said that I did not disapprove of any comments by any hon. Member, irrespective of the part of the country he represented. After all, we are asking in the Bill for a lot of money, and since that money is being raised throughout the United Kingdom, it is

right and proper that it should be subject to questioning. I have said the same thing in opposition in dealing with various borrowing powers Bills.
I have taken no exception to the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. Indeed, if he or some of his hon. Friends chose to join us in the Scottish Grand Committee, I am sure that the Conservative whips would be glad to have their services. I can recall an hon. Member from an English constituency speaking there, and he made an interesting speech.
The Bill has two distinct purposes. Clause 1 makes provision about the limit of the borrowing of both boards to be increased by two or more stages from the existing level of £1,200 million to £1,950 million, and a substantial proportion of the boards' capital requirements is financed from revenue. The boards estimate that over the period to 1982, when it is expected that a further increase in the statutory borrowing limit may be required, the level of internal financing will amount to about 40 per cent. of the total requirement. This proportion could be substantially increased only by means of what would be to me and to many others an unacceptably large increase in tariffs.
If, therefore, the boards are to be in a position to make the substantial investment in new generating capacity which will be necessary to enable future demands to be met, the existing borrowing limit will have to be increased. This Bill will enable the boards to borrow the sums required to permit the necessary investment to be undertaken.
The boards' proposals for new investment are set out in their brochure "Plans for the Future, 1975 to 1982", which I am sure many hon. Members have studied with interest. The principal provision in the investment programme relates to the construction of a nuclear power station at Torness in East Lothian, which is part of the steam generating heavy water reactor nuclear programme announced by the Government in 1974.
Since then, decreasing demand for electricity has given rise to questions by a number of hon. Members about the need for Torness, and the future of the SGHWR programme as a whole is under examination as part of our current


review of energy policies. Whatever the outcome of that review may be, it is quite clear to many of us that additional generating capacity will be required to meet the increased demands for electricity in the mid-1980s.
I am, therefore, satisfied that there is adequate justification for the increase in the borrowing limit in this Bill, and I hope that hon. Members have the same sort of confidence in Scotland and its future as I have in making a decision of this kind.
Clause 2 will enable the Secretary of State to make payments to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in reimbursement of deficits which it has incurred in supplying electricity to the Invergordon smelter. As I said on Second Reading, the contract between the board and the British Aluminium Company provides for electricity to be supplied to the smelter at a price related to the expected cost of generation at Hunterston B nuclear power station, and it was designed to cover all the hoard's costs over the life of the contract.
Deficits have, however, been incurred and will continue to be incurred in the future, because of the delay in the commissioning of Hunterston B which has made it necessary for more expensive electricity to be supplied from alternative sources, because the basic level of output of the station may be lower than was assumed when the supply contract was drawn up, and because recognition of the risk of corrosion of boiler components has led to a decision to restrict the operating temperature of the reactor and thus to reduce, at least in the short term, the output of the station.
Recent reports I have received from the South of Scotland Board indicate that the initial problems at Hunterston B have now been largely overcome. The first reactor was commissioned earlier this year, and I understand that the second is likely to be synchronised into the grid in December. Already the first reactor has produced 75 per cent. of the output of the two reactors for which the board has budgeted in the year ending March 1977. Until the station has been fully proved in commercial operation, however, it will not be possible for me to make a final assessment of the liability to make com-

pensation payments to the hydro-electric board.
For this reason the Bill specifies no limit on the payments to be made. However, I want to stress that Parliament will exercise control because Orders will be placed before the House of Commons, they can be discussed and there will be ample opportunity for hon. Members to make their views known.
These payments are to be made in fulfilment of an undertaking that the board's other consumers will not suffer as a result of the aluminium smelter's supply arrangements given to the board in 1968 when the contract was drawn up. I emphasise that no payment will be made under the provisions of the Bill to the British Aluminium Company, which will continue to pay for the electricity supplied to the smelter in accordance with the terms of the supply contract.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said that we were asking for a great deal of money. That is true, but we foresee an increase in the demand for electricity in Scotland and we look forward to increased industrial activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) did not make a purely constituency speech because the matters he raised as a Renfrewshire Member also involve the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell), who also has constituency interests related to Babcock and Wilcox. Therefore, this important matter must be thoroughly examined.

Mr. Buchan: I thank the Minister for that comment. I must inform him that an analysis shows that only 10 per cent. of the 22,000 to 24,000 jobs would be in my constituency.

Mr. MacKenzie: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point. I know that he has been concerned about the steelworkers in his constituency, as have many other hon. Members with similar constituency interests. I hope that the House will appreciate that the company concerned has a high reputation not only in Scotland but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. It has a good export record, but it has also been a supplier to some important concerns in England. I would never do anything to


stop that process because it must be to the benefit of a great number of people. Because of our concern about the industry of which Babcock and Wilcox is part we have commissioned studies in the industry and we hope that those studies, in conjunction with examinations of other energy questions, will provide many answers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) asked for the CEGB to be treated in the same way as the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I should stray out of order if I were to trespass on that territory since it is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. As my hon. Friend explained in a Written Answer to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on 21st June, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's losses under the aluminium smelter contract have an overwhelming significance for that board and the general body of its consumers which is not present in the case of the CEGB's contract. Moreover, CEGB's losses on its Anglesey smelter contract have been absorbed in the board's general revenue account and have therefore hitherto been offset directly or indirectly by the payments made by the Government to the electricity boards under the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1975.
To put the matter into perspective, the total electricity revenue of the industry south of the border in 1975–76 was more than 30 times that of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's. While the smelter contract absorbed a quarter of the hydro-electric board's unit sales, it accounted in the case of the CEGB for less than 1 per cent. In the circumstances the Government decided that the situation was different from that in the north of Scotland because other consumers would not have to bear excessive burdens and, accordingly, that compension for CEGB's smelter losses could not be justified. I understand that that is still the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Palmer: What the Minister is saying is that if it is a big concern it is not accorded the same ration of justice.

Mr. MacKenzie: I said nothing of the kind. I said that it was 30 times more difficult for the hydro-electric board to operate.
My hon. Friend also asked whether we could set up a Select Committee to consider employment, job creation and so on. That is a matter for the House of Commons and not a matter for me. No doubt my hon. Friend will pursue, the point in other ways.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has never been very enthusiastic about the electricity industry in Scotland. He asked whether we were having discussions about the future of the SGHWR and whether there would be considerable delay. I hope that there will not be delay because I know that the board is still anxious to have such a station in operation in the mid-1980s.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Craigroyston. He is asking me to go further than I would want to go at this time. The Craigroyston scheme is not yet finally before the Secretary of State. I understand that the scheme is still subject to discussion between the board and district and regional councils, conservation organisations and others. In any event, whatever payments are required for Craigroyston would not fall within this Bill.
I was surprised to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who clearly had not read the board's annual reports with his customary care. I know that he often makes such documents the subject of midnight reading, but if he rereads those reports he will be delighted to learn that both boards in Scotland made a modest but nevertheless nice profit over the last year. We in Scotland are pleased about that outcome.
I conclude by saying that I believe that a Bill of this kind displays confidence in Scotland and in Scottish industry. One of the reasons for the inclusion of Clause 2 was to provide much needed jobs in Scotland. If the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield is worried about the situation, he should discuss it with the hon. Members concerned who have shown considerable enthusiasm on this score, not just in this debate but on previous occasions.
I think that the Bill is good for the industry and for the domestic users in Scotland. It is good for Scottish industry. I hope that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading and wish the two boards well in future.

Questions put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISSOLUTION) BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

6.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I ask the indulgence of the House if I reserve my comments until the end of the debate when I have heard the points which hon. Members wish to raise.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: We have moved from the comparative frequency of a debate on Scotland to the great rarity of a debate on the problems of South-East England.
I do not oppose the Bill, but it would be wrong if nothing were said on the Floor of the House about its implications.
It marks an important stage and we should spend a short time discussing it. I shall be brief because there is a great deal of other business before the House. I shall have my eye on the rather repellent new clocks introduced into the Chamber. They remind me of the green eye of the little yellow god.
The Bill is a stage in the long, unfinished saga of what to do about air traffic in the London region and the United Kingdom as a whole.
We all have our own views and interests. I represent a constituency which was threatened by the Cublington proposition a few years ago. I was an ardent opponent of that and was sympathetic to the idea of an airport and perhaps even a seaport at Maplin. It seemed to represent an exciting concept and the balance of environmental arguments was very much in its favour.
However, events have moved on. There are now clear doubts about the rate of expansion of air traffic. This depends greatly on our economic position and it is hard to be sanguine about that at present. There is also to be taken into account the development of quieter aircraft, which is a potentially encouraging part of the story.
There is also the possibility, hankered after by many people, of the development of a new or existing airfield away from London—in Birmingham or the East Midlands for example. This would be an attractive solution if it made sense. We must recognise the continued dislike in the aviation world of an airport at Maplin, so far from London, and we also have to recognise the overriding public expenditure implications.
Few of us believe that Maplin should go ahead now. It is impossible to say whether it might ever again come in to the reckoning and it is right to wind up the authority and assume, for immediate practical purposes, that it will not go ahead.
However, do not let us delude ourselves that the problem will now go away or that we can sit back with equanimity and forget about what may happen if no action is taken. Airport planning is a long-term operation. We talk about the mid 1980s and 1990s as though they are some way off, but in this context they are not that far away. This is not the occasion to debate the consultative document on airport strategy though I hope that the Minister can assure us that the document will be debated in the near future.
I understand the great concern felt at the Government's elmination of the Maplin option by people living near Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted airports. There is well-founded talk about bigger and quieter aircraft, but the people living near these airports sometimes feel that this talk seems a little too easy for them. A job of persuasion has to be done here.
I suspect that those living near Stansted are particularly apprehensive about what is developing. After all, this saga began at Stansted years ago. It seemed to slip through almost unnoticed, but then came a reprieve and there is now uncertainty in the area again. I have had strong representations from the Essex County Council and people are now naturally alarmed when someone like Mr. Nigel Foulkes of the British Airports Authority is quoted as saying that he sees Stansted as:
the expansion chamber for the South-East.

The prospect before Stansted is of a rise from 250,000 passengers a year to perhaps 4 million and conceivably even 16 million. This involves not just the flights, but employment and land traffic implications, and all this will be happening in a very beautiful part of the country.
The Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning has argued strongly against the Government's proposals, not just for Stansted but for the other airports as well. The conference says:
The long-term proposals for the South East's airports in the November 1975 consultative document are thus open to strong objections on regional planning grounds.
It is my duty as a spokesman on the environment to remind the House that environmental, human and planning considerations are extremely important. The last Conservative Government established the importance of these considerations once and for all—I hope—and they must not be forgotten. They apply just as much to the other airports, about which some of my hon. Friends may wish to speak, as to Stansted.
I hope that this matter will not drift on indefinitely and that we make clear that dissolving the Maplin Authority does not dissolve the problem.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. John Wakeham: I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He raised a number of broad issues and I am sure that he will not take it amiss if I do not put the same emphasis on those matters. My hon. Friend spoke about the overall position, but he also mentioned a constituency interest and I must say straight away that I have a clear constituency interest in this matter. The proposed site for the Maplin airport was in the centre of the southern half of my constituency and I make no bones about welcoming the Bill and hoping to see it passed tonight.
I welcome the Bill for three main reasons. First, the decision having been taken not to build an airport at Maplin, the necessary tidying-up operation clearly has to be carried out, and this Bill is not much more than a bookkeeping operation. The Minister will remember that there was plenty of scrutiny in Committee


Indeed, there was far too much for the liking of some hon. Members opposite. I can assure any hon. Member who was not on the Committee that every line and every figure was considered in enormous detail.
My second reason for welcoming the Bill is much more important. It will end the doubt and uncertainty. There was no doubt that, the decision having been made and announced, a considerable number of people were still uncertain whether it would be reversed. I welcome the Bill because it will once and for all clear up the uncertainty of those who live in my part of Essex.
Thirdly, I welcome the Bill so that the planning of the environment and the community in our part of Essex can go ahead without the terrible blight which we have had for some 10 years. The cost that we are writing off to the national debt in the Bill is £2·3 million. Although I believe that that is still rather a lot of money, I accept that in parliamentary terms it is peanuts.
There is no doubt that the majority of the cost of Maplin has been borne by the people in my constituency in terms of the planning blight from which they have suffered over the years—the uncertainty about road development, about housing, about jobs and about the environment. It is a great step forward that this uncertainty in my area will at last come to an end.
I do not for a minute suggest that the great debate about our aircraft strategy has to stop. This is a very important issue, and clearly many national problems have to be solved. We must obviously have a full discussion and debate on the major issues involved. While accepting the arguments that I know will be advanced by my hon. Friends who have this problem in their own areas, I certainly do not want the debate to be at the expense of my constituents, with any threat of resurrecting the Maplin project.
The passing of the Bill will be the end of the Maplin saga. I welcome it. I also feel, at the same time, from the discussions I have had with the Minister and the letters I have received, that we are also unlikely to see a seaport in the area of Maplin in the foreseeable future.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I, too, support what the Government are doing. I understand very well the feelings of a number of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies near Heathrow and Gatwick, and it is not for me to trespass on what they will say. I support the Government for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I have consistently opposed what I always felt was one of the silliest ideas ever to be perpetrated—or potentially perpetrated—on the taxpayers of this country. When my party is calling, as it now is, for a reduction in public expenditure I have no difficulty whatsoever in welcoming this small contribution to that end.
I also welcome very much the way in which the Government have begun to seek an acceptable national airports policy. This is something that has never been done before. The Government have made considerable efforts in this regard. They will never find a way of pleasing everybody, but they seem to me to be trying to find an answer to an intractable but a not totally insurmountable problem.
Perhaps I may follow the recent example of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who quoted from one of his own speeches. I wish to quote from the heated debate of 1973, when I said:
In all our discussions about the location of new airports the resulting public expenditure is sometimes forgotten.
Later I added:
What estimate has my hon. Friend made of the price of this airport, with all the infrastructure and with inflation built in over 10 years, plus the likely cost overrun in 1984—if that is not an unfortunate date to choose—at 1984 prices?"—[Official Report, 13th June 1973; Vol. 857, c. 1504, 1512.]
We talked even in 1973 of a first estimate of about £1,000 million. Nobody really knew what the airport—if it had been built—would cost. The mind boggles at the sort of figure that would be discussed today.
I was one of those who, on the night in question, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), pushed through a new clause for insertion in the Maplin Bill, so that we could try to take account of changing developments in the world of aerospace. My hon.


Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) referred to a few of those developments when he spoke just now. I ran away on that occasion and hid in the lavatory because I was so afraid of having led a revolt against my own Government, but I have never felt that it was wrong, and the decision taken by the House on that night can now be seen to have been the right one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury mentioned Cublington. There is no point in going over history, but the decision to built an airport at Foulness was, I think, one of the less reputable decisions taken by the Conservative Government of the day. There was no attempt to forge a national airports plan. All that happened was that as soon as Roskill reported, considerable pressure, understandably enough, was brought to bear by Members of Parliament on the Secretary of State merely in order to shovel the airport out of their own area. That is the way in which the Foulness project was born. It certainly was not the recommendation of Roskill, and I do not think it would have been an acceptable way in which to reach such an important decision.

Mr. Toby Jessel: rose—

Mr. Adley: My speech will be quite short and then my hon. Friend may get the opportunity to make as many points as he likes.
The British Government do not have powers to force foreign airlines to use airports which they do not want to use. We could have built this marvellous airport at a cost of £1,000 million, £2,000 million or £3,000 million, only to find that foreign airlines would not have used it. At the time I made the point consistently that I would only ever support Maplin if the Government of the day made a commitment to close Heathrow and Gatwick over a given period of time. Only in that way could Maplin ever have succeeded.
I do not know whether any hon. Members present have had the opportunity of visiting Mirabel airport at Montreal. If ever anyone wished to see a political airport—which is what Maplin would have been—Mirabel is that. It is probably the most expensive, the most lonely

and the most wasteful airport project ever conceived by any Government. It will be one of the elephants which will hang around Pierre Trudeau's neck for ever. Maplin would have been Britain's answer to Mirabel.
Many hon. Members represent constituencies in South-East England. In the South-East millions of people want to have easy access to air travel. It really is not surprising, therefore, that the air services are concentrated where the population is heaviest. It would be surprising if that were not the case, but it must be accepted by those hon. Members that they cannot very well argue on the one hand, that their constituents want to have good communication and travel facilities, and, on the other hand, that they do not want to suffer from the noise and inconvenience of an airport in their area. There is no conclusion to this conflict of interests. If people wish to get away from noise, they are better off living in the north of Scotland, but then they will be a long way from airports—and also from cinemas, theatres, restaurants and so on. These facilities all go together.
The one thing I regret is that the Government did not proceed with the Channel Tunnel project. The Channel Tunnel project was directly related to Maplin, and it is inconceivable that the two could be planned in isolation from each other. It would have done more than anything else to ease the problems of congested air traffic in the South-East.
I think that the original Maplin decision was wrong. It was a decision to put an airport in the wrong place at the wrong time. We can now say good riddance to it.

6.20 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: You will not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I take up a position which is far removed from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). Gatwick is in my constituency and, every year that I have been there, I have been justly bombarded by constituents asking for relief from the mounting noise in the air and the growing congestion in the area, largely metropolitan green belt, with the demands made for more housing, more schools, more


roads and more of almost everything. The clear threat is that this area will become urban sprawl linking Brighton directly to London.
When Maplin was projected it seemed a way of taking many of these burdens, especially aircraft noise and congestion on the ground, from areas worst affected. Certainly that was one of the main environmental attractions of the Maplin project. For residents in the area, it was the light at the end of the tunnel. That tunnel was likely to take 10 years to build at Maplin, but, by bringing back hope, it made the prospect of life in the Gatwick area much more tolerable for many of my constituents. Others of my constituents living on the other side of the constituency are almost equally plagued by the shaw of Heathrow. They get the nuisance both ways, and as a result, I receive complaints from all sides.
In my constituency I have seen the burden and I understand what it means in terms of the daily lives of my constituents, but they are concerned not only with the present: they are thinking of the future. The prospect for the future in my constituency, with Heathrow now carrying a passenger traffic of about 20 million, with freight growing rapidly and projected to carry up to 32 million passengers and more in the years ahead—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I must ask the hon. Member to refer his argument to the Bill, which has only two clauses, both of which are quite simple.

Sir G. Sinclair: I am dealing, rather obliquely, I agree, with the consequences of letting this Bill go through and the consequences of the decision taken in July 1974. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, when you see it in that context, you will allow me to explain what is to happen as a result of this Bill, the shelving of this project.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member will recall that, on Third Reading, he is not permitted to talk about matters that are not in the Bill.

Sir G. Sinclair: In that event I must depart from the pattern set by previous speakers and confine myself more narrowly to Maplin.
The arguments about Maplin were always that it would relieve Heathrow and Gatwick from the burden that they were bearing and were expected to bear in the years ahead. Now that Maplin is to be put away, at least during the term of this Government, I must ask the Government to consider the consequences of this action for the people living in my area, because I believe that they are very serious.
As a result of the withdrawal of this project, Gatwick now faces a build-up of passenger traffic, which at present runs at 5 million a year, to five times that amount before the end of the century. The planned development already goes up to 16 million in the 1980s, and beyond that it is projected that it will mount to 25 million. That is bigger than Heathrow today. As a result of having no alternative to this Maplin project we shall have in a largely green belt area an airport causing an urban sprawl right across that green belt.
The Minister has shown great care in listening to the arguments of my constituents and I pay tribute to the hard work that he has done in trying to consider how to meet the protests of people living round Gatwick Airport, but how can any Minister limit the expansion of these two main London airports without contemplating a third London airport? The demand is there; it will not go away because of some temporary political decision. The demand will go on increasing. It has risen in France, and it has risen in Holland. They have new metropolitan airports, but we are left with two airports which are already over-congested and less and less able to meet the mounting needs of air traffic today, especially if, as we hope, Britain recovers its economic prosperity in the next decade.
I should like to hear from the Government that, if they carry through this Bill, they will give guarantees, similar to those given at the time of the Maplin project, that the sprawl of Gatwick and the consequences for people living there and the countryside for miles and miles around will be limited and kept within civilised bounds.
I was looking round Gatwick the other day. Within the space of a year the


expansion of Gatwick and of the road-works coming into the airport has made this a new part of the country. It is difficult to find one's way about. In Gatwick Airport I asked someone the way to Horley. He replied "Horley? Never heard of it. I don't know." There is a huge complex of roads built over what was sparsely populated country.
The consequences of the decision to abandon Maplin, though much praised by hon. Members whose constituencies would have been affected by the project, will be very serious in the years ahead for people living round Heathrow and Gatwick. If the traffic is allowed to increase as it is projected, life in those areas will he less and less tolerable and more and more congested. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance that this decision will be accompanied by some control of the size of Gatwick Airport.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shersby: My remarks will be directed mainly to the consequences flowing from subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1, and particularly from the decision which the Secretary of State will have to take in appointing the transfer date.
We have reached the end of an era. The concept of establishing a major international airport on the South Coast at Maplin has departed, and with it the hopes of many thousands of people who believed that the construction of Maplin would bring an end to the aircraft noise, pollution and heavy traffic which gives so much trouble to those who live in this congested part of the United Kingdom.
In place of Maplin we are left with the excellent consultative document "Airport Strategy for Great Britain", but with very little else, and it is because of this vacuum that I wish to speak briefly tonight.
The disappearance of Maplin is a matter of considerable interest to my constituents in Uxbridge because Heathrow Airport is located in the same borough as my constituency—that of Hillingdon. Most of the people who live in Hillingdon are proud of the fact that Heathrow is within the borough's boundaries. Thousands of them earn their living at the airport and many more hope to do

so in future. I am not one of those people who can be accused of trying to shuffle off the effects of major airports to other parts of the country. On the contrary, I share my constituent's pride in Heathrow Airport.
Hillingdon runs from south to north, and therefore we do not suffer aircraft noise or such great consequences as many of my hon. Friends whose constituencies lie west or east of the main runways at Heathrow. My concern and that of my constituents caused by the death of Maplin is about the policy of transport infrastructure to serve the projected increase in the use of Heathrow. It is essential that the dissolution of the Maplin Development Authority should be followed as soon as possible by an agreed airport strategy both for London and for the regions.
I shall not go into the document on airport strategy in detail tonight, but I shall say a word or two about the way in which it relates to this Bill. It is relevant in certain respects. The decision to abandon Maplin clearly means further development of existing airports. At the time of the abandonment of the Maplin project the then Secretary of State for Trade explained that, regardless of the Maplin decision, it would be necessary to extend the capacity at Heathrow to about 38 million passengers a year with the addition of a fourth terminal. In the master plan report for Heathrow of November 1972, the British Airports Authority envisaged that at some date after 1980 it was likely that an additional terminal and associated facilities would be required.
By 1980 many of the current developments which we have to suffer at Heathrow will be completed. A fourth terminal is planned for Heathrow and will be built later to increase passenger capacity to not less than 38 million by 1983. In the longer term, a fifth terminal is planned which will require a lead time of 12 years, and will be built on the Perry Oaks site. This will increase the passenger capacity to around 53 million a year. This is what we have to contemplate following the abandonment of the Maplin airport project.
I ask hon. Members to try to visualise the scene on the M4 motorway in the late 1980s when the number of passengers


using Heathrow nears 50 million a year. None of us needs a crystal ball to see it being jammed solid on most summer days and every weekend. This will happen despite the extension to Heathrow of the Piccadilly Line from Hounslow West.
I am rather sceptical about the effects of a rail link in relieving Heathrow. I have a feeling that passengers from abroad will not be inclined to hump their luggage on to a London tube station, or even from one terminal to another at Heathrow. Also the journey to Heathrow from London by tube involves stopping at many stations en route, and is not particularly convenient. It is my hope that the passage of this Bill will be followed swiftly by the development of a new regional airport strategy.
I echo the words of one of my hon. Friends who hoped that there would be a debate on this subject soon so that hon. Members from all parts of the country could make a contribution. I hope that when we look at the strategy we can consider the possibility of making better use of regional airports. There is no doubt that one of the consequences which flows directly from this Bill is that every area of the country will have to be prepared to take some share of the burden placed on regional airports in terms of noise and traffic.
Finally, I should like to float an idea which has been in my mind for some time in view of the regular journeys I make to and from my constituency. If we are ever to cope with the tremendous amount of traffic using Heathrow we shall have to consider the possibility of building a second tier to the M4 motorway. I see no reason why the excellent precedent set by the M4 flying over the A4 should not be extended, and why there should not be eventually a toll motorway from central London to Heathrow. The expenditure involved in such a motorway could be financed from the tolls.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, if we increase the flow of traffic through what the Layfield Commission called the M4-A4 corridor, this will lead to intolerable conditions in the Chiswick area of my constituency? To do so would be totally contrary to the view of the Layfield Commission. My

constituents argued their case before that commission, they won it, and received an assurance from the report of the Committee of Inquiry that it would be environmentally unacceptable to increase the flow of traffic. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind. I hope that the Minister concerned will also accept that there is apprehension in my constituency both as a result of Heathrow and as a result of the M3 pointing like a dagger towards Chiswick. Environmentally, conditions in Chiswick would be made monstrously intolerable by any increase in the flow of traffic.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I point out to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that the idea he is trying to float is, strictly speaking, out of order.

Mr. Shersby: I understand the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). This illustrates the need for a wide-ranging debate on this matter at a later date.
I support the Bill, but I look forward with great enthusiasm to the day when a firm conclusion is reached on the regional airport policy and we have an opportuniy to debate it.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: As many of us on the Conservative benches have made clear, it is not what is in this short Bill that counts but its consequences and implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) put the point very skilfully in describing exactly what flowed from the Bill.
I should like to ask the Minister three questions. First, when the decision was taken to abandon Maplin and introduce the Bill, was proper regard had to dealing with various matters which would almost certainly result? The first—this was the main burden of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby)—is the enormous congestion that there will be in the neighbourhood of Heathrow as a result of a buildup of traffic. I remember that during the last debate on Maplin when we were in government the strongest point made from our Front Bench was not that Maplin would benefit those living around the London airports, from the point of


view of aircraft noise, but that there would be intolerable congestion around those airports. It was said that for that reason alone, if for no other, it was essential to disperse and build a third airport outside London on a different site.
We have seen the forecast increase of traffic to 50 million passengers by 1980, or 53 million if the extra terminal is built at Perry Oaks. With only 20 million passengers a year at present, all our constituents in the area know the intolerable burden in their daily lives, at weekends and when they are trying to sleep at night.
My next question is to ask what regard was given to the increase in the noise problem. What steps were decided upon to deal with that problem? One cannot simply abandon a project and with it all thought of dealing with the problems that it was to alleviate. Some consideration must be given to what is to be put in the project's place. What thought was given, and what thought is being given now, to the environmental problem of aircraft noise from which millions of people in the London area suffer?

Mr. David Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of aircraft using London airport this year is down on last year, although the number of people using it is up?

Mr. Mather: I shall touch on that point later.
My third question concerns an alternative strategy. We have a number of documents on airport strategy, but before this project and the strategy that went with it were abandoned one would have expected the Government to give some thought to an alternative strategy and not to start from scratch, which will mean taking years.
My constituents and I have a vested interest in the answers to those questions. Many of my constituents make frequent use of Heathrow airport, which is a great convenience in their business trips and other travel arrangements. But many others have to put up with the noise problem with no compensating benefits. We have not only the problem of the Mole Valley route, the easterly take-off from Heathrow, but helicopter routes crossing the constituency, Concorde, and the west-

bound aircraft which double back to the east. We seem to have the noise problem in every way in Esher.
For many years the noise level has been intolerable. It has increased over the years and the frequency of aircraft has increased. One of the documents shows that passenger traffic was increasing by 13 per cent. every year until one or two years ago.
I wish to refer to "Airport Strategy for Great Britain", the London area consultation document, and in particular to the forecast in it that the noise will reduce drastically over the years to 1990. There are some interesting noise footprints in the document, showing the area of the 50 NNI contour gradually reducing over the years until it is quite small. Since those forecasts were made traffic has reduced, but unfortunately we have not heard the result in the noise that we suffer, because the same number of aeroplanes seem to fly.
That means that the airlines' income has been reduced, and the money for investment by them and the aircraft manufacturers on the development of quieter engines has also been reduced. Surrey County Council or the GLC has suggested that the forecasts will be set back by 10 to 15 years as a result of the recession. The hopes expressed in the documents that we need not worry about the cancellation of Maplin, because aircraft noise will be greatly reduced over the years, have been undermined by the oil crisis and the recession.
All of us who are involved in the game of juggling with aircraft routes know that the only really beneficial answer is quieter aircraft engines. Although I hesitate to suggest a massive injection of Government help for research and development in this area, I should have hoped that the Government might have put aside for this purpose some of the funds earmarked for building Maplin.
I do not think that any of us thought that Maplin would be a panacea for our problems, but it was certainly a hope, a light at the end of the tunnel. It was an imaginative project, an attempt to solve a great environmental problem—namely, the enormous build-up of air traffic over our small island. What will be left by the Bill is a void. I hope that we shall hear what will fill it.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The last line of Clause 1(2) states:
the Authority shall cease to exist.
If it ceases to exist we shall have no Maplin Airport in the foreseeable future. That will be a disaster for many people living around the existing airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton.
I believe that Maplin offered the one long-term hope for the future. If it had gone ahead when the Conservative Government took the decision to bring it in in 1971, and if it had not been dropped subsequently by the Labour Government in the summer of 1974, by the early 1980s we could have diverted or forced the noisiest aircraft for example Boeing 707s, Tridents and Concordes, to manoeuvre, take off and land over the sea instead of over residential areas. We could have permitted only the quieter aircraft to use Heathrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) has said that quieter aircraft are being introduced. The Under-Secretary of State informed me by letter two days ago that 18 per cent. of aircraft now using Heathrow are of noise-certificated standards. That leaves 82 per cent. that are not. Quite a large proportion of the 62 airlines using Heathrow are continuing to buy noisy aircraft which have a life of about 20 years. The hush kits to which the Department referred in a recent document have been shown not to be cost effective. There is no prospect for advance in that direction.
It is the frequency of aircraft that causes the most suffering. Already there are about 600 flights a day in and out of Heathrow. It is true that there has been a small drop this year as a result of the oil crisis, but anyone who has studied the problem will know that that is no more than a temporary hiccup in the upward trend in the number of aircraft moving in and out of Heathrow. By the middle or late 1980s, assuming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) says, that the number of passengers has increased to 50 million a year, the number of aircraft will not have increased so dramatically as we should have more large aircraft, but there will be about 900 or 1,000 movements per day.
The decision to drop Maplin makes it inevitable in the long term that more and

more aircraft will be crammed through Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and perhaps Stansted. I do not believe that the Government or the Liberal Party have faced the environmental consequences.
In an Adjournment debate I said,
I refer to the problem of aircraft noise—a problem which nobody with any personal experience of living under the noise shadow of a major airport would dream of belittling. This is a serious problem which causes a great deal of human suffering, ruins people's quiet enjoyment of houses and gardens, interrupts the work of schools, churches, hospitals and offices, and interferes with people's private lives, their telephone conversations, their opportunities to listen to gramophone records or watch television."—[Official Report, 27th June 1974; Vol. 875, c. 1928.]
It must be admitted that it is a problem that some people do not mind very much, but to many others it causes real hurt. To a minority it causes serious anguish, and for a small number it causes mental illness, as was shown recently by some studies at the West Middlesex Hospital.
That is why I say the Bill is a disaster. Responsibility for this disaster must lie with the Liberal Party as well as with the Government. The Liberals have always been totally hostile to the Maplin project. I am sorry to see that none of the 13 Members of the Liberal Party, which pretends to be concerned with the environment, has taken the trouble to be present at any part of this debate so far. It is an important debate from an environmental view and their total absence is a disgrace.
If any Labour or Liberal Member is thinking of visiting any part of my constituency, I offer them some friendly advice, namely, to come in the winter rather than the summer, when the suffering from aircraft noise is at its most acute.
Fortunately the plans for Maplin have not been destroyed but put on the shelf. I hope that before long economic conditions will change for the better and allow the scheme to be resurrected.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), in presiding over the last rites of Maplin, I too shall shed a tear on its passing. Before doing so, and before my mind is made up, I ask the Minister to give us a number of assurances.
I represent a constituency a few miles to the east of Gatwick. Into and out of Gatwick fly thousands of aeroplanes which leave their noise behind them. No doubt as the passengers look down from the aeroplanes they see some of the most beautiful country in the South-East and, indeed, in any part of the United Kingdom. It may be thought in passing that the problem is of small consequence compared with the one that faces those who live under the noise of aircraft moving in and out of Heathrow, but it is true to say that if one lives in a quieter ambience the intrusion of one or two aeroplanes can be more significant than the intrusion that is felt, for example, close to Piccadilly Circus, where the noise of aircraft is so often drowned by the noise of surrounding traffic.
It is not my purpose to suggest that our problem is as serious as that felt by those who live close to Heathrow. However, as we are all invited to support the demise of Maplin. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a number of assurances.
There is a growing suspicion that it was not cost alone that led the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House to kill off the project but the fact that it is easier for Governments and politicians to allow existing airports to grow slowly—it is called creeping incrementalism—rather than taking a bold, positive and imaginative step. Such a move was taken by the French when they constructed the Charles de Gaulle airport.
The only way that we can solve this problem on our crowded island is by constructing an airport by the sea. It is easier, it is argued, because we have become used to aeroplanes, to allow another terminal to be built. Ministers know—I make no criticism of the present Minister, who I know take these matters seriously—that it is easier to allow a terminal to grow because it develops within the curtilage of an airport and there is no need for the British Airports Authority to approach the local authority or any of those who have to suffer the consequences of its planinng decisions.
If the Bill becomes an Act, the problem is thrust back at the House. We

cannot get rid of it by creeping incrementalism. It is a serious social problem for those who happen to live within the sound of airport activity. People in the South-East are noted for their tolerance. They did not take to the streets even under this Government, they are not the sort of people who rush out on great protest marches, but I suggest that it would be unwise to assume that because we have had Gatwick airport for the past 25 years people do not regard with considerable anguish the manner in which the airport has been allowed to develop.
I quote from a document that was issued by the responsible Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign. It refers to the beautiful summer we have just experienced and states:
How frequently were we forced indoors by the stridency of overhead jets, and then compelled to shut windows so that we could converse or listen to radio or television. When we go to bed, we must decide whether to risk losing sleep through shut windows and lack of air or through open windows and too much noise…. We feel all the more bitter because this never need have been. The need for a coastal airport was evident 10 years ago.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under the Standing Order (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISSOLUTION) BILL [Lords]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Johnson Smith: So that the Minister may be under no misapprehension about the effects of the Bill or consider that those who write the newsletter for the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign are exaggerating, I quote from the


Financial Times of 11th November last year:
So far as Gatwick is concerned, the fact is that what was once a rural and comparatively peaceful part of southern England is likely to change significantly in character as the airport develops".
That is what we have foreseen, and the growth rate now expected, because the terminal facilities are being planned is to expand passenger movements from about 5 million a year now to about 16 million by the middle of 1980. That is a tremendous increase in passenger movements. It will entail a tremendous increase in noise. We know that, far from improving, the situation will deteriorate and we shall be in the 1990s before the noise situation improves at all, partly, of course, because many of the older type of jets will continue to use airports such as Gatwick.
We are not a pushover in this part of the world. We do not want it to be turned into a concrete jungle. We do not want our environment destroyed, in this way, and it is not just a question of noise, either, though I shall come to that in a moment.
We recognise that the airport has brought benefits. Of course, it has. It has brought jobs to the area. It has brought wealth to the area, and we recognise also that it has brought wealth to the country. We take some pride in the fact that the Gatwick airport terminal is well designed and, I think, the most modern in this country. It is certainly the best we have, and it compares well with those abroad.
Therefore, my comments are not based on the standpoint of someone who wants to turn the clock back and say that we should never have had an airport. I realise the value to modern commerce, and I admire the entrepreneurial skills of people such as Mr. Adam Thomson of British Caledonian and the young men and women who play their part in keeping the aeroplanes flying. I recognise also that they believe that the future of their airlines and the prosperity of our country depend upon our having a flourishing civil airline business.
Nevertheless, one must take a balanced view of all these matters. I believe that we can meet some of the increased demand that we are asked to meet by the early 1980s, which assumes a through-

put of about 16 million passengers a year. There are those who would not like it to go as high as that, but, so far as I can judge, there is no serious objection by the local authorities to an expansion of that kind. There are those who, as I say, would like slightly less, but I think that we can probably just about wear it.
The problem begins after that, and I want the Minister—I see that he is having certain matters brought to his attention at the moment—to pay close attention to this. We have had two important documents from the Department, and we are grateful for them. I draw his attention, however, to the tone of the documents, and I think it of particular importance tonight, before we leave the Bill, that he should give the assurances we seek.
I quote first from page 55 of the document "Airport Strategy for Great Britain—Part 1", which deals with the London area. There is a reference to the increase in population, which will be about 45,000 if we have a throughput of 25 million passengers, and there is then this statement:
This would be well within the levels envisaged"—
that is, the population increase—
in the sub-regional study. Some drainage problems are expected in the area, but there are no identifiable abnormal infrastructure costs. Generally, only land of lower agricultural quality would be affected. However, experience of the growth of employment and housing in this area suggests that the rate of expansion at the airport should be matched by the provision of housing to keep pace with both natural growth and the movement of population into the area.
Those are very bland words, and the refrain is taken up in almost identical words in Part 2 of the Airport Strategy for Great Britain, the consultation document on the regional airports, which is part of the Airport Strategy series for Great Britain. I quote from page 122:
In developing capacity up to 25 million passengers a year the most likely problems would appear to he labour shortages and housing, both of which might be aggravated by unduly rapid airport expansion.
Again, those are bland words, more or less—I mean no disrespect—from the same stable.
Let us now come closer to home, to those who know the area well. I now


quote from a report issued in March 1976 by the Standing Conference on London and South East Regional Planning, paragraph 144 on page 37 of which tells us:
First, to date the catchment areas of Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton have experienced prolonged labour shortages which have created problems for other economic activities, particularly manufacturing industry and the public services.
It should be remembered that there is a new town in the Gatwick area, and part of the concept of that new town was to develop manufacturing industry there.
Even in the current economic recession, unemployment rates are well below the regional and national averages in the Heathrow and Gatwick areas. Prima facie, therefore, a recovery of the economy is likely to see a renewal of serious labour shortages in these areas.
There is a difference of tone there. I come next to the evironmental aspects of the matter, and I quote from page 44 of the same report:
In environmental terms, there must be concern about the concentration of so large a part of the air transport industry in such a small part of the region, let alone the country as a whole. Even though the noise situation is forecast to improve dramatically by 1990—and we do not necessarily share the optimism shown in the November 1975 consultation document—the heavily built-up nature of the Heathrow area means that far more people will still be adversely affected by aircraft noise in that area than in the whole of the rest of the country. Gatwick adds to the problem. It must surely be a major objective to improve environmental conditions for people living near and under the main flight lines to and from Heathrow and Gatwick.
I could make other quotations, but I now quote the conclusion in this part of the report:
We have concluded that there are similarly powerful regional planning arguments against the building of a second terminal at Gatwick.
That terminal is the terminal which would lead to a throughput of 25 million passengers, and those quotations come from the document produced locally. The matter was examined most carefully by the local authorities, and there is no one in any authority at any level who does not endorse those findings, and some put the matter in rather stronger language, as is clear when one talks to them and reads their documents.
Therefore, with all respect to the Minister, I beg him to note that, much as we

value the strategy documents from the Department of Trade, it must be recognised that they vary considerably in tone from the document produced locally.
I think that that is all I can properly say at this stage, especially since there are other hon. Members who wish to speak. I urge the Minister to recognise that many of us have serious misgivings about the passing of Maplin, and we hope that, as he discharges his duty, he will not for one moment think that those of us who live in the shadow of these airports, much as we value the profit that they bring to this country and the jobs which they provide locally, are not seriously concerned that we may find ourselves with a growing environmental and human problem of monumental scale.

7.10 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall be brief. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) I have noticed that the green eye shines not only on us but on both Front Benches.
I make no secret of the fact that I have a deep constituency interest in this matter. The Minister is aware that my constituency is probably the worst affected in the country. I shall endeavour to keep within the compass of the Bill, which itself is narrow, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been generous in allowing some of us to develop the reasons why we believe the Bill should not be given a Third Reading.
Aircraft noise in my constituency is already unreasonable both by day and, despite the Minister's efforts, by night, to such an extent that work in schools, hospitals and public institutions is interrupted. People cannot sleep at night. Those who work at night are unable to get proper rest during the day.
I remind the House that Windsor and Maidenhead is one of the fastest growing areas in East Berkshire. Maplin, which was a long-term project, at least gave light at the end of the tunnel in that people could see some alleviation. Therefore I ask, what are we to get in replacement? It is no use saying that we can sweep the whole matter under the carpet and refer to the "Airport Strategy for Great Britain". The matter is becoming increasingly urgent almost every day.
If we pass the Bill, we shall lose one of the greatest opportunities we have had, first, to divert the more noisy type of aircraft from Heathrow and the other main airports, and, secondly, to have a great seaport and airport side by side—the seaport financed almost entirely by private capital.
There are opposing factors. I respect the views of hon. Members who support the Bill. Their constituents have pressed them very hard. Over the last seven years my constituents have pressed me very hard. They ask, "What are you going to do about the aircraft noise'?" No doubt the constituents of other hon. Members have pressed them in the opposite way.
None of my constituents has ever believed that Maplin was the panacea, but it was at least something to which they could look forward. They could say "It is hell now, but if we hold on for long enough the time will come when the noisier aircraft will be diverted to another airport where the noise will principally be over the sea, not over highly congested areas."
I said that I represented an area more affected by aircraft noise than anywhere else, but I should remind the House that people in surrounding constituencies are also affected by this serious problem. Maplin offered a possibility of some relief from aircraft noise, if it could be achieved and the necessary communications constructed without a great deal of difficulty. I shall not go into that matter because we dealt with it on an earlier occasion.
I am sure that the Minister has studied the "Airport Strategy for Great Britain". In all fairness, I must say that he has always given me straight answers to the questions that I have put to him and has considered the points which I have made. Therefore, it is in a spirit of inquiry, not contention, that I put this point to him. This document has been widely circulated for comment and possible suggested alternatives. I always find that people are more likely to comment than to propose sensible alternatives. If the proposals in this document are followed, I cannot but see that an additional runway for Heathrow will be constructed. The "Airport Strategy

for Great Britain" quotes that the projections for Heathrow
include the current expansion programme which would raise the capacity from 21 million passengers in 1975 to 30 million.
That is a considerable increase. It would mean, as I am sure the Minister would be the first to agree, another runway.
Another point of equal importance is that, if that happens, the Minister will have to reconsider the whole question of the level of noise created by aircraft. I do not believe that it is acceptable for the so-called quieter aircraft to be allowed to land at night at Heathrow because the noise from those aircraft is still very serious for those who live under the flight path.
I ask the Minister to resist the demands which are being made for a further increase in the flow of traffic into Heathrow. I am glad and honoured that he is listening. I suggest that the whole question of night flights must be thought out carefully.
One, two, three, or four flights at night can cause an immense amount of damage. Of course, in an emergency, one must accept that situation, but a few flights at night can be extremely annoying, because they wake the unfortunate sleeper. If he cannot get to sleep again he has lost a night's sleep. That is the pattern of life. Therefore, I ask the Minister to resist the natural commercial desires of operators to use Heathrow at night on the basis that they are employing so-called quieter aircraft.
The definition of "quieter" aircraft requires revision. What was considered quiet at one time certainly is not quiet now.
There are many aircraft operators. I admit that I was with one the day before yesterday. He said "You see before you—I will get you as close as I can—Windsor Castle and the lovely town of Windsor. I must not get too close." But they get so close that they almost blow the roofs off the houses. That illustrates the routes in and out. They get so close to the town that the noise becomes an unbearable burden to those who live within the area.
I was pleased to hear what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). I do not often


make party points. However, in all our deliberations so far, the Liberals have been prominent in supporting the abolition of Maplin. We ought not to forget that, because they apparently believe in personal freedom and liberty. To my mind, personal freedom and liberty can be completely destroyed by the level of aircraft noise, because it is far greater and worse than ordinary traffic going down a main road.
If this plan goes ahead and a fourth runway is installed at Heathrow how does the Minister propose to cope not only with the noise problem but with the traffic on the roads to the airport? One of my hon. Friends mentioned the Piccadilly Line. I do not believe that that would be capable of absorbing the additional amount of traffic that would be going into and out of London.
What is the estimated percentage increase in noise which will result from the increased number of aircraft going into and out of Heathrow? I quoted 21 million to 30 million passengers. That does not necessarily correspond with the number of aircraft, knowing, as we do, that not all aircraft carry their full passenger loads.
Furthermore, if the Minister finds that it is quite impossible to avoid inflicting further sorrow and misery on the unfortunate people who live under the flight paths, be they for Heathrow, Gatwick or any other airport, what proposals do the Government have for the creation of another airport?
Finally, I believe that Maplin was an imaginative project that could have been carried out. It would have been better than the Charles de Gaulle airport, at which I landed the other day, although that is a very modern, highly efficient airport. Maplin would have been better because it would have been combined with a seaport. There would have been no question of noise over built-up areas, because the environment is open sea.
The Government have lost a very great opportunity. It would have been far better to allow this project to remain in limbo at a very small cost. If it had remained in limbo for two years, I believe that the costs would have been very small—that is, given that we would be going ahead with the project under per-

haps more auspicious financial circumstances.
In those circumstances, the right course for the Government would have been to state honestly "We cannot afford to build this airport at this time but we shall leave this plan on the table because we have done so much work on it and it is such a suitable project. Let us go ahead with the ground work, the less costly part of the work, but let us look ahead and, finally, let us build an airport worthy of Britain and one that can relieve a very large number of people of a great deal of noise." If necessary, when the airport had been finished, why could we not have sold London Airport for a very large sum of money for the building of a housing estate? That would pay fort housing estate? That would pay for almost any airport in the world.

7.23 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I want briefly to depart from the somewhat complacent obituary notices that have been offered by some of my hon. Friends on the demise of the Maplin Development Authority. If the Bill is passed today, it will be a very sad day indeed. As many of my hon. Friends have said, we shall have missed a great opportunity. Instead of legislating that the Maplin Development Authority should "cease to exist"—the exact wording in the Bill—I believe that tonight we should be discussing granting the authority greater and further powers.
The Maplin project was, anyway, too small and limited in its original concept. Insufficient attention was given to the much larger proposals put forward by certain consultants and others about reclaiming the entire Thames estuary—nothing less than that. Had we planned to do so, this would have provided three things.
First, it would have provided an absolutely admirable airport. All the discussion has tended to be about airport and aircraft noise. However, it is a much bigger concept that we should be discussing in the Maplin project had we done the very big job of reclaiming the estuary.
Secondly, we could have also had a seaport adequate for Britain's present and future trade and we should have seen something that was set to rival the


Euroports, which are taking away much of our trade by their ability to take deep draught ships while the Port of London is dying on its feet and falling into a state of disrepair that it has not seen for centuries.
Thirdly, apart from the seaport—and we must remember that a huge proportion of our trade with other countries, inwards and outwards, goes by sea rather than by air, which accounts for a tiny proportion—we could have had huge areas of reclaimed land. As I understand it, such land would have been reclaimed at far less cost than the value of prime land in the area concerned. We could have had a canal running up through those broad acres as far as London. The Dutch, who have done this sort of thing on a very big scale, and who think big, are laughing at us for missing this opportunity.
Had the financial resources that the present Government are allocating to unnecessary nationalisation of perfectly satisfactory industries been put into this project, we should have been on a course leading to success. We should have had an imaginative and ongoing scheme and something of which Britain could be proud.
The proposal to abolish the Maplin project and to put the whole thing into limbo is a further indication of the Government's posture—that is, they are sitting like giant welfare state figures gazing at their own navels.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I regret that I find myself in almost total disagreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), and, regretfully, I support the Government on this occasion. I do so having for 18 months lived and breathed the arguments about Maplin.
The last case that I undertook at the Bar, after 20 happy years at the Bar, was to take part in the four local inquiries and the final inquiry by the Roskill Commission. Looking back on it now, having forgotten most of the arguments and, mercifully, all the evidence, only one lasting impression remains with me that I seek to convey to the Government. A gross series of errors was made. That led, inevitably, to the Third Reading of

this Bill. We are now about to write off just over £1 million. It is still a large sum of money, but it will be a cheap price if we learn the lessons of the errors that we made over the years leading to the Maplin decision.
The House will know that after hearing all that evidence and having tested it for so long—better brains than mine, those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and some of the foremost planning silks and experts on this subject were engaged on this task—it was eventually decided that the Bedfordshire site was the least of the four evils.
However, that was the negative approach, and inevitably the Government of the day, in fixing the terms of the inquiry, forced the Roskill Commission to think negatively. When one requires a commission to assess evidence in that way, rather than positively, one is almost inevitably goading its members into making a faulty decision. Sir Colin Buchanan entered a minority report of one, and he described the Cublington site as an environmental disaster. However, all the other evidence and all of the other members of the commission would have said unhesitatingly that Maplin would have been economic nonsense.
I agree to some extent with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester. The airport would have been economic nonsense, but there may well have been some success, had the money been available—many hundreds of millions of pounds—if we had been able to extend it into a seaport and reclaim the available land that could be reclaimed there, and possibly to develop a new town or even an industrial area.

Dr. Glyn: The point is that the seaport would have been financed largely by the Port of London Authority and by private capital. Therefore, it would have involved very little expense to the Exchequer.

Mr. Body: Those arguments were well and truly deployed by two groups. One must not call them pressure groups. They were two organisations that were put together on an ad hoc basis to advance that case. I should be reluctant to push that too far because all this was long ago


and I do not pretend to have any accurate memory of the evidence or of what we discussed at the time.
I make just one point about the error which was made—and this is the only matter about which I can speak with the slightest authority. We never had the opportunity of posing the question whether a third London airport was necessary. In fact, we were forced to regionalise a national problem because whether this country is to have another major airport is not a question to be looked at just in the light of what is needed in London and South-East England. It is something which must be looked at nationally and the evidence must be on a national basis.
It was extremely regrettable that the Government of the day did not enable the question to be posed whether, firstly, we needed another major airport in this country and, secondly, whether that airport could not have been better placed either in the North or the Midlands. Considerable evidence was available that a Midlands site would have been desirable. Nor did we have any opportunity of assessing the way other and smaller airports, such as Birmingham, could have been extended. If my memory serves me right, evidence was available, but it was irrelevant and could not be called, that the Birmingham Airport was under-used by 60 per cent. at that time and could easily be extended given some expenditure of public money.
Those questions were not put, with the result that the Roskill Commission, after spending 18 weary months assessing all the evidence, was inevitably driven into the corner by choosing Cublington. That was a site from which the Government of the day dissented although it is reputed that there was only one man in that Government who really dissented, and for reasons other than economic ones.
I shall say no more about that. The fact is that a series of errors has been made and the result is that we are not only writing off more than £1 million but we shall have for many years to come—at least 10 years—the kind of speeches that we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), who never misses an opportunity to make these points on behalf of his constituents. I am glad that

he does because I live only a few miles beyond Windsor and I also suffer from the flight path, although not as badly as my hon. Friend's constituents. The other complaint we heard was put forcefully by my hon. Friends who represent areas which are afflicted by what goes on at London airport, Gatwick and elsewhere.
Some time in the future we will again have to face this question. We will have to ask ourselves—indeed, it will not be this House which will have to answer the question because I do not think that we in this House are qualified to reach conclusions—about where another London airport ought to be sited and other questions pertinent to the need for a London airport.
We will have to look at this matter again one day. When that day comes I hope that we will remember the errors which were made—the way the Commission was set up, narrowness of the terms of inquiry, and the way political issues were allowed to intrude so that a decision which was inevitably economic nonsense was made. Perhaps next time we shall remember the lessons about how these errors were made. If that is done, the expenditure of £1 million or more will have been worth it.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: This is one of the most excellent Bills I have ever seen presented to this House. It is short, comprehensible, saves public money and carries into effect one of the few—perhaps the only—enlightened actions of this Government. I give it a very warm welcome.
It has been said this is rather like the last rites—a final funeral oration—over the Maplin project, and I welcome that. It is perhaps improper to welcome a funeral, but on this occcasion I do so. It seems to have taken a rather long time dying, but, having got to the Third Reading of the Bill, let us make sure that it is decently buried.
For my constituents, and for the people of North Kent and Essex, it is important that it stays dead. I hope that my hon. Friends who have been trying to resurrect it almost indecently tonight will understand the damage which could be done by continuing the uncertainty in those areas if one revives the speculation about


airport projects of this kind, particularly when one recognises that there is no chance whatever of its happening.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not follow that.

Mr. Moate: My hon. and learned Friend probably did not follow that because he has a vested interest in trying to—

Mr. Bell: What I did not follow was the logic of the statement that those people will be highly disturbed by the uncertain future if they realise there is not the slighest possibility of this happening.

Mr. Moate: It is the local residents who become disturbed by the uncertainty created by politicians who in their minds know full well that the project is not likely to be commenced on another site. If that was not clear before, I hope that explanation clarifies the point for my hon. and learned Friend.
I described this as the only enlightened action of this Government. Thank heaven they took that clear and courageous decision. If they had not done so, I would ask the House to think what the position might be today were the Maplin project proceeding. We would now be in the middle of creating an environmental disaster in Essex and North Kent because of the noise of the flight paths going over the north Kent area, and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who fought so long and hard in the campaign against Maplin. This would have been a major environmental disaster in our area and would now be under way.
I would also ask the House to consider the economic consequences. We would have been launched on one of the most uncontrollable white elephants in public expenditure terms that we have ever commenced. I do not know what the position of the Conservative Party would be today in respect of our pledge to make major cuts in public expenditure. We might have to say that we would cut public expenditure with the exception of defence, the police and Maplin. It would be crazy to have started this project and then suddenly to stop it.
In fact the cost, even a couple of years ago, was in the order of £1,000 million.

Heaven knows to what it would have escalated by now—£2,000 million or more perhaps. Thank heavens that the Labour Party had the foresight in this one isolated, but welcome, action to cancel the project and prevent the Conservative Party from having to do the same when rather more damage had been done.
When I and my hon. Friends in Kent and Essex fought against this environmental disaster, it was not without a full understanding of the problems for the people living around the other major airports in the South-East. What I ask my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight, those who live and represent areas near Gatwick and Heathrow, to remember is that by creating yet another environmental disaster in another part of the South-East I do not believe we would have relieved their constituents of any major aspect of aircraft noise. It was quite clear that the capacity of Heathrow and Gatwick had not been fully utilised. Even allowing for the construction of Maplin it would have allowed for a continued growth and traffic in Heathrow and Gatwick over and above even what is being experienced today. What we would have seen is a greater problem of noise and traffic at Gatwick and Heathrow than we have even today, not just the vast development in Essex and all the problems associated with that as well as the immense public expenditure involved.
It is no way out of the problems of Heathrow and Gatwick simply to find what people believed would be an environmental escape hatch by creating a new airport at Maplin. It might have given hope to people around Heathrow, but it would have been a false hope, created at enormous public expense. It would have been not only environmentally and economically damaging, but inefficient and unpopular. Even if one were to have another London airport—that is not the right question that we should have been asking—Maplin would have been a bad site. It was too far from the capital to be popular. For the foreseeable future, people will still prefer to go to airports by car. Maplin is a long way from the capital.
But an even stronger argument against Maplin was illogicality of investing that sort of money in the South-East at this time. It would create far greater regional


imbalance. I am not one who sees great merit in the stimulation of regions by Government subsidy, but one of the few investments, particularly in infrastructure terms, which can produce genuine spin-off is airport investment.
How illogical it would have been to put thousands of millions of pounds into what we then described as the overheated South-East—it is not so overheated at the moment—by way of new airports, new towns, roads and railways; it made far more sense to consider the matter nationally and decide where best to put an airport or further expanision.
My one major criticism of the then Conservative Government is that they made this decision in isolation. In earlier years we always said that no decision about a new airport in the South-East should be taken until a full national airport strategy had been evolved. But then we went ahead before any such strategy had been made and a national strategy evolved. I therefore particularly welcome the fact that this Government have launched these airport studies and that any future decisions can be taken on a national basis.
It seems to me that the long-term answer must lie in expansion of the existing regional airports where there is under-capacity, where economic investment will probably do far more good than in the South-East and where the environmental effects can be spread and absorbed.
In recent weeks and months, there has been talk about the revival of Maplin. One county council even started to talk again about the Isle of Sheppey in my constituency. That sort of talk is irresponsible and meaningless except to the people who live in the area. I urge people to stop this type of speculation.
In order to do that, I wrote to the Government asking for a plain statement that there was no question of building Maplin or of an airport at Sheppey. In his reply, the Under-Secretary of State wrote:
Finally, speculation that the Government is reconsidering the Maplin project or a new airport site elsewhere is unfounded.
I welcome that, but he took a long time to get to it and made a whole series of qualifications—

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): It was a long letter.

Mr. Moate: There would have been more political benefit to be gained by saying plainly, "Maplin is not going to be built and there is no question of the Government starting the search for a new London airport."
Earlier in his letter, the Under-Secretary said:
All the views expressed during the consultations will be considered but in the current economic situation and in the light of the assessments contained in the consultation document
speculation was unfounded. With that qualification, the implication is that perhaps when things change people might start talking again about this sort of site.
The Government have made a difficult and courageous decision and they should continue to reap the benefit. Heaven knows, they need some small compensation for their disastrous record. Let them take it in this one small instance. Let them say that Maplin is killed off and it is killed off for ever.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: As I represent a constituency to the east of Heathrow, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) will understand that I do not agree with many of his arguments. I want to speak briefly tonight, particularly since I am anxious that the Public Lending Right Bill should get a Second Reading.
It is sad that the bold and far-sighted reclamation project of Maplin should be killed. It is a sad and dismal decision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said, the number of passengers using Heathrow is bound to increase—probably quite considerably. The odds are that much of that increase will seek to travel by road along a corridor which is already densely used.
The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge of another tier on the M4 was so outrageous that I had to intervene to express resentment and total opposition. In Brentford, people live as near to two roads as the Minister is to me at the moment. The people in Adelaide Terrace already must be living in one of the worst areas in terms of road proximity, with the A4 at their front


door and the M4 at their bedroom windows. The thought of still another tier on top is outrageous and I hope we shall hear no more about that.
Traffic pours densely into the Hogarth roundabout, which is the centre of holdups. The thought of any more traffic on that route or on improved roads in the area is totally unacceptable and I hope that the Minister will understand the deep feelings on those grounds.
As for noise, the implication of the Bill is that the nuisance suffered by people around Heathrow will increase. I underline the sensible and restrained comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). He did not exaggerate in what he said about the tremendous pollution of the environment suffered by his constituents and mine and those of other hon. Members caused by traffic using Heathrow.
We cannot let this occasion go by without making known what increasing the present noise nuisance—or even holding it at the present level—means to so many of our constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) mentioned night flights. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Trade present. I have always found him to be courteous and concerned, although he has not always reached the decision I should like. We welcome the assurance that there will be no increase in night flights, and we hope that it will not be long before a substantial decrease will take place.
Another problem posed by increased use of Heathrow was highlighted by the recent tragic air crash in Bolivia. That accident occurred in a crowded urban environment with a tremendous death toll among people living around the airport, and not just among the people in the aircraft. As I represent a constituency that is so close to the runways at Heathrow, I have great feelings of horror when I think of the carnage that could occur in such a densely populated area. There has already been one great tragedy near Heathrow, and but for the grace of God the incident might have been a great deal more serious. It so happened that the wind was in a westerly direction, taking the aircraft over open land. Had the wind been blowing in

another direction, goodness knows how serious that tragedy would have been. Therefore, any thought of an increase in the density of aircraft movements around Heathrow fills me with grave concern.
I regret that the Bill could lead to an increase in the use of the air space and flight paths around Heathrow. I hope that ways will be found to reduce and deal with the noise and nuisance that may flow from these provisions.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) referred to this Bill as "the wake of Maplin". I believe that is an accurate description. The trouble is that we have now to consider who is to pay for the funeral, because the cost will not automatically disappear.
I believe that the cost of developing Heathrow and Gatwick will be at least as great as would have been the cost of developing Maplin. This is a problem the Government must face. Although it is difficult to make any concrete assessment of the costs, I know from my knowledge what will be required in infrastructure terms.
I shall not deal at length with that topic because I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to do so in due course. I am concerned about the immediate effects of the cancellation of Maplin, and especially about the expansion of the Gatwick complex.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply to the debate, will be aware that the majority of Gatwick workers live in my constituency, and a large proportion of them in Crawley New Town. The presence of Gatwick is beneficial to the employment prospects of my constituents and a moderate expansion of Gatwick is welcome. I emphasise that it is "moderate" when compared with the eventual throughput of 25 million passengers at Gatwick in the 1990s or certainly by the turn of the century. The present throughput of passengers there is 5 million and it is proposed to extend that figure to 16 million by 1985. That will mean a threefold increase in the present level of passenger movements at the airport.
The Minister is aware of the predicament in the Crawley area because of a


severe shortage of labour. Crawley New Town must be the only town in the country that is still suffering a labour shortage. The situation is not as severe as it was but, surprising as it may seem, a shortage still persists. This has occurred largely because of the expansion of Gatwick, but also because a natural extension of industry has taken place in Crawley over a period of years and it is a scientific or technological-based industrial complex with a high level of exports.
Ministers know that in the last two or three years I have tried to exert great pressure on behalf of my constituents to bring more resources into housing in my constituency. If Gatwick is to be expanded to a total throughput of 25 million passengers by the addition of a second terminal at Gatwick, how is the housing problem to be handled? The Minister well knows that because Crawley is a new town it has no stock of old housing on which to call. It already has a housing programme of 500 dwellings per year, but expansion of Gatwick on the lines suggested will certainly exacerbate the situation. How is the situation to be contained? Who will provide the houses, who will build them and who will pay the costs? My constituents would like answers to these questions.
Some of my hon. Friends may feel that Crawley is enjoying an embarras des richesses in terms of employment prospects, but we also suffer considerable problems of infrastructure. The Government will need to deal with these problems in due course. I am wholly in favour of a moderate expansion of industry at Crawley, but it would be fatal if the airport were to grow to such an extent as to force the present firms in Crawley to move out of the area because they could not find the workers they required in Crawley.

Sir G. Sinclair: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the drag of employment to Gatwick is so heavy that it distorts other industrial claims on the labour forces and imposes almost an airport monoculture on the area which can be greatly to the detriment of the wide balance of industry that is built up in an area?

Mr. Hordern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was about to come to

that point. There is already evidence that skilled craftsmen in Crawley are leaving their jobs to sweep out aircraft at Gatwick. There is a danger that Crawley might one day become a one-industry town. That would be a sad day for the industry of Crawley and of this country, but there is already evidence that firms are considering leaving Crawley and some have moved their expansion plans to other areas. If the expansion of Gatwick proceeds, with a second terminal and 25 million passengers a year in the 1990s, it poses a serious threat to the future employment of my constituents.
I do not know how the Minister is going to manage the housing problem. It is a matter for him, Crawley Council and the West Sussex County Council, but it is likely to be very much more expensive than any development at Maplin would have been.
The Under-Secretary for Trade shakes his head. He can have no idea of the expense of land and development at Gatwick. I hope that the developments of Gatwick Airport and Crawley New Town will go ahead together. If there is any undue strain, the future expansion of industry at Crawley is likely to be threatened and I should not like to see that happen.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) to speak, may I take it that he appreciates that we are not now discussing the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill?

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am keenly aware of that fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, though I look forward to the opportunity of discussing that Bill.
At the moment, I speak in the sorrowful role of the hon. Member for the Beaconsfield constituency. I do not wish to argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) about who suffers most from London airport, but I fear that my constituents share the worst position with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe).
Because of my very great interest in these matters I have started two groups


in the House—the Conservative Party group and an all-party group on aircraft noise, of which I have been chairman for some time. I should like to say on behalf of all the members of those groups that we have found the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for Trade most sympathetic, co-operative and understanding when we have put difficulties before them.
Of course, this is an insoluble problem. I would that it were not so. I cannot support the Bill. I am aware of the practical difficulties of the Maplin project, but it will not have evaded the attention of the House that those opposed to the Maplin development are those whose constituents would be affected, to some degree, by aircraft noise if the new airport were built.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is naturally concerned about the north Kent area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), with whom I usually agree in our debates, lives in Berkshire and has said that the planes would pass over his home. I do not think that anybody who has spoken in this debate or any hon. Member active in this field who is affected or whose constituents are affected by the noise from Heathrow would disagree when I say how happy our constituents would be if aircraft from Heathrow passed over them at the height at which aircraft from Maplin would be passing over North Kent.
I was not able to be here when my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) spoke earlier. He is a constituent of mine. He lives in the village of Horton and knows what aircraft noise can mean. Aircraft taking off from Heathrow go over his village, climbing at full power, sometimes at a height of 400 feet. When there is a westerly wind, planes seem to be passing over every 70 or 80 seconds during the day—though if I am told that it is every 100 seconds or every two minutes, I shall not argue. This is something dreadful to put up with.
No words of mine can exaggerate the experiences of people living in areas of London immediately adjacent to Heathrow or in the green belt villages immediately to the west of the airport which I represent. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead represents

communities similarly affected, though they are not so close.
I am constantly in correspondence with the Under-Secretary for Trade and Lord Boyd-Carpenter with complaints from constituents about aircraft noise. Once people become conscious of noise, they quickly become hyper-sensitised and are driven almost to the point of neurosis.
People come into my area knowing its position relative to London Airport, but thinking that they are steady, stable people who will be able to live with aircraft noise. After a few months they find they cannot. It really gets on their nerves and spoils the pleasure of living in their homes and gardens during the summer.
When the Secretary of State announced the dropping of the Maplin project, he made two relevant statements. The first was that by the time the first runway at Maplin would have come into service, quiet aircraft would have taken over from the noisy planes from which we suffer at present. We know that the Tridents, 707s and 1–11s particularly rip on the consciousness of people who are susceptible to aircraft noise.
The other statement by the Secretary of State was that in consequence of the cancellation of Maplin it would be necessary to expand massively the utilisation of the other London airports. That sent a frisson of horror down the backs of those already suffering from noise at Heathrow.
Economic circumstances have changed so that the replacement of the noisy type of planes by the quieter—not quiet—types has slowed down because of the enormous cost of the aircraft and the difficult period through which airlines have been passing.
I know that aircraft traffics have been looking up a little. The economic outlook may be a little better. But it is already clear and not disputed that the introduction of the quieter types of aircraft and the replacement of the noisier types will be deferred by, it is rumoured, something like four, five or six years, beyond what was expected.
I used to be able to say to my constituents "It is awful, but there are two hopes. First, the noisier types are being


replaced, and this will gradually bring you a degree of relief. Secondly, Maplin is coming and the noisier types can be diverted to Maplin, and so can the night and weekend take-offs." This added up to a prospect that was liveable with. But now Maplin has gone and the replacement of the noisy types has been deferred. So what am I to say to my constituents?
My constituents are now able to read that the number of passengers going through Heathrow will increase by 50 per cent. We are told that, as more passengers will go in wide-bodied aircraft, there will not be any more aircraft movements. I hope that is true, but we have had many disappointments in the past. I must make the point to both the Ministers listening to the debate that when a certain intensity of aircraft noise and a certain frequency of aircraft passing overhead has been reached, a mitigation which takes the form of a 707 being replaced by a Jumbo Jet is welcome, but it is not enough.
There are extrapolations which show that the number of aircraft movements, as distinct from passenger movements, at Heathrow, will be going down over the next 20 years. What does this mean to somebody living in Halton, Datchet, Wraysbury, or Windsor? It means that instead of having an aircraft passing over their homes every two minutes, they will have one every three minutes, and so the change hardly matters to them. An aircraft takes quite a while to approach, pass overhead and go away. If the interval before people begin to hear the next aircraft is increased from 90 seconds to 130 seconds, there is not, psychologically speaking, any relief in that. I am reminded of the old story of somebody upstairs taking off one shoe and throwing it on the floor, and then remembering the person down below, who almost wants to go upstairs and say "For God's sake throw the other shoe on the floor".
We are able to debate this Bill in the Chamber of the House of Commons, where all is quiet except for the noise that we make, and hon. Members tend not to live in the areas worst affected

by aircraft noise. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher is an exception.
We do not realise with sufficient starkness the way in which this nuisance of aircraft noise gets hold of people. Once it goes beyond a certain point, they are sensitised to the noise and a diminution of 10 or 15 per cent. is no answer to their difficulty.
What, then, is the answer? For me, still, the answer is Maplin and therefore I must oppose the Bill. People talk about the escalation of costs. Costs do not escalate with the passage of time. The number of pounds increases because the value of a pound goes down, but the cost in real terms does not escalate. It is an arithmetical escalation and not an escalation in true cost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) made an excellent point to which not nearly enough attention is given. I think it was the present Foreign Secretary who made the statement about the massive increase in the use of the existing London airports, and no one seems to have costed what that meant. The cost of extending Heathrow and of extending Gatwick will not exceed the cost which would have been incurred by building Maplin. The public expenditure incurred will be just the same.
The Maplin project was to proceed gently at first. There was not to be very heavy expenditure in the first years. It is the years that we are now in that are critical. Later on, this expenditure could, I think, have been sustained, and it would have been the right and, indeed, the only solution.
In addition, it should be remembered—I hardly dare mention it because my own constituency interest in aircraft is so strong—that Maplin was a double project with a seaport also involved. The Port of London, plainly, is ageing, and we have lost nearly all our entrep6t trade to the Dutch ports because of the poor service that we are giving. There was a time when London was the port for entrepôt trade. Everyone knows that today it is Rotterdam. We have been outclassed. We have sat back and accepted it, saying that we cannot afford it these days. It is a very strange


approach and not one with which I can possibly agree.
My hon. Friend the Member fox Holland with Boston spoke of the environmental disaster of the Maplin proposal, and so did my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. I do not think that Maplin would have been an environmental disaster at all. It might have been for the geese, but I cannot evaluate that.

Mr. Body: I think it was Colin Buchanan who was the first to use that phrase in respect of Cublington. I went on to say that although Maplin might be environmentally the least of the evils, it would prove to be an economic nonsense. I think there was abundant evidence adduced at the Roskill Commission to bear that out.

Mr. Bell: I accept what my hon. Friend said as to the phrase being used in relation to Cublington, but two other hon. Gentlemen used it in relation to Maplin, and it was to them that I should have been referring.
I do not think that Maplin would have been an environmental disaster at all. A major airport is not an agreeable project wherever it is put. There is no question about that. It will inevitably cause trouble. But why have our greatest airport not so much on the edge of but actually in the biggest community in the whole country—London? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth said, it is a miracle that we have not had a major disaster with a large aircraft crashing in London. Aircraft fly over Kensington and over Westminster continually. It is just sheer luck that none of these crashes has occurred over a densely built-up area.
I speak for my constituents. Other hon. Members speak for theirs. But do not let us forget the people of London. The assumption seems to be made that there is so much noise in London that they do not notice it. However, most Members of Parliament spend a good many nights in London, and the noise over Kensington and many of the western boroughs of the capital strikes me as almost intolerable. I cannot think why people put up with it.
I come back to where I was when my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston quite rightly interrupted to

put me right. I see no solution except, in the end, the restoration of Maplin to the programme. If there is another provision, I ask the Minister to let us know what it is.
I think that every hon. Member who is concerned with this problem from the constituency point of view tries to be moderate, tries to moderate the complaints which come to him, and tries not to transmit the more hysterical reproaches which reach him. I think that we tone them down, and we try to be reasonable because we recognise the difficulties which the Ministers face. But do not let them underestimate the magnitude of the suffering—I think that that is the right word—and of the representations which are made to Members of Parliament by their constituents because of this aircraft noise. It is spoiling the quality of life for between I million and 2 million people.
I do not know what the answer is, but I know that somehow an answer has to be found, whether it is scaling down the number of night movements, stopping movements on Sundays when people want to be in their gardens, or putting a ceiling on the totality of movements at Heathrow and Gatwick. All these have to be looked at.
But it is not just that it must not get worse. It cannot go on as it is. There is no light at the end of the tunnel any longer. When this Bill goes through tonight—we shall not stop it; we shall try to, but we shall not succeed—there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Therefore, something has to be done, and the Ministers who put forward this Bill must accept the responsibility to do something about it, because the noise now is intolerable in the strict sense of the word.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I have considerable sympathy for the Under-Secretary of State. What appeared to be, when it started on its passage through this House, a fairly short and easy Bill which would not occupy him too long has on a couple of occasions occupied him for much longer than he had hoped—and, to be honest, for longer than some of us had hoped, too.
This evening's debate was not totally unexpected in that almost no one turned up for the funeral other than the friends


of the deceased. A number of my hon. Friends, mostly friends of the deceased, have spoken, and the Chair has been very tolerant as the debate has strayed perhaps from the narrowest interpretation of the Bill.
I am sorry, as I think a number of people outside this House will be, that there has not been a word said on behalf of the residents of Eton and Slough, of Feltham and Heston, of Ealing, North, of Southall and of either of the two Luton constituencies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are all constituencies very much affected by the demise of the Maplin project. They are affected by the problems of aircraft noise and of airport development. Nothing has been said from those constituencies. I have no wish to make a partisan point by drawing attention to which party has the allegiance of those hon. Members who have not turned up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] No doubt their constituents will know. It is not for me to say.
But if Maplin is dead, it has left us with a legacy of problems, just as if it had been born and not just aborted as we have aborted it now, which would have given rise to a great many problems.
I do not want to rehearse the arguments and the comments of many of those who have spoken, but there has been an interesting trend in this debate. It is that, whereas people used to speak about nothing but the problems of aircraft noise in relation to airport development, a great deal more has been said tonight about a variety of problems on the ground. In fact, the problems seem to be coming home more as round environment than as air environment problems. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said about the problems of M4 traffic. Those of us who drive that way, let alone live that way, know them all too well. However, my hon. Friend said that aircraft noise round Heathrow would increase. I believe that he was wrong. This is not just an off-the-cuff judgment; it is based on the best judgments which can be made.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) should not despair. There is a delay in the

introduction of quieter types of aircraft because of the recession. However, he can assure his constituents that the Over seas Division of British Airways has ordered nothing but quiet aircraft, with the exception of the Concordes, of which there will not be very many, and very soon will operate nothing but the quieter types of aeroplane. The situation is not so good in the European Division, but there is no doubt that that, too, will come before long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), like others, was very keen on drawing attention to the problems of development round about Gatwick. He was right to do so. Unless they are dealt with, all that is being done by the aircraft designers and operators to reduce aircraft noise will be set at nought beside the additional noise from the inhabitants and the vehicles round the airport. It is a curious fact that some of the measurements now show that there is more noise on Sunday afternoons in the summer quite close to major airfields from lawnmowers than from aeroplanes. It may be that we should think about how many lawnmowers there are likely to be operating rather than thinking all the time about how many aeroplanes there will be—[Interruption.] I hear one of my hon. Friends commenting that there are not many low-flying lawnmowers. However, there are all the problems of noise associated with the additional developments round our airports. I said lawnmowers facetiously, but I had in mind factories, motor cars and everything else associated with other development.
Now we face the fact that this Bill ties up the end of the Conservative Government's strategy for dealing with these problems. One may agree with it or not, but at least it was a strategy. Now we need not only to wrap this up but to say something about the strategy which must flow from this Bill. We need to know what the Government intend to do about the control of development near airports. We need to know how they intend to restrain development on the ground both by not allowing residential development under flight paths and by limiting the amount of other development so as to avoid what has been referred to as the possibility of an urban sprawl from Gatwick to the South Coast.
We also need to know something about the incentives to be given to increase the rate of introduction of quiet aeroplanes. I do not mean financial incentives in terms of the Government handing out money, but the incentives the Government have in mind, not just to stop the operation of noisy aeroplanes at night, but to encourage their replacement with quiet aeroplanes. We have in mind ideas such as total aircraft noise limits, aircraft fleet limits and so on. The Government must have an idea of what they plan to do to help people living around Gatwick, Luton and Heathrow, particularly now that they are not going ahead with the Maplin strategy.
In the debates we have had on this Bill the Government have given no alternative strategy to control the problems of noise or development around existing airports. We were promised a debate on airport strategy as long ago as 17th March when the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), the Minister then in charge of the Bill, said on Second Reading:
I think that the proper time for a full debate on airport strategy would be as soon as the Leader of the House could arrange it, after the regional document which comes out shortly after Easter."—[Official Report, 17th March 1976: Vol. 907, c. 1509.]
Here we are in October, and we have to use the Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill as a vehicle for such a debate, with considerable tolerance from the Chair. I hope the Government will find time soon for this long delayed debate. We must assume that they do not want a debate because they do not have a strategy and they would have nothing to say to those who are affected by airports.
We have heard nothing about Government thinking on the Maplin seaport. They have been asked on many occasions whether they have an opinion on the need for the seaport. If there is such a need, should we be dissolving the Maplin authority? We have no idea whether the Government believe there should be a seaport at Manlin; they merely mutter that this is something about which the Port of London Authority will advise them at some time. The Government have no right to let this matter drift.
In opening this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that we on this side accept

the logic of public expenditure in this issue, and we do not intend to vote against the Bill. The Minister may have persuaded his own Back Benchers, who are supposed to represent constituencies near London's existing airports, to go away and shut up, but I warn him that he will be pursued by my hon. Friends, who take their duties much more seriously, until he satisfies us that he has a strategy, and that he will take action to deal with the problems of London's airports which stem from the aircraft overhead and the associated developments on the ground.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about the great tolerance shown by the Chair in this debate. As a result of this concession we have had an interesting and useful discussion on airport strategy in general, even though we are in fact discussing, and I hope approving shortly, the Third Reading of the Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill.
One general point which has come out of this debate is that there are no votes in airports. As I listened to speaker after speaker, this became increasingly obvious. I do not wish to be facetious about this, because in a large number of the speeches there was a clear recognition of the basic problem. It would have been easy for hon. Members to repeat representations from people in their constituencies about noise and congestion, but they did not do so because they recognise the difficult dilemmas facing anyone who tries to design an airports policy.
I shall say a few words about the Bill itself before speaking on airports policy generally and answering the points made by hon. Members in their speeches. There are certain points which I am not in a position to answer immediately. However, where specific questions have been put to me I shall see that hon. Members receive answers by correspondence in due course.
First, I should emphasise the point we made in Committee that it had been the Government's pronounced intention since the Maplin airport project was abandoned in July 1974 to seek powers as soon as convenient to dissolve the authority. We believe that the authority has no useful function and no means of ever repaying its debts, upon which interest continues to


accrue. Therefore, we shall lose no time in appointing the day on which the liabilities and any property and rights of the authority will pass to my right hon. Friend. Its debts will then we written off. In due course the authority will cease to exist and the Maplin Development Act 1973 will be repealed.
I know that certain hon. Members have good reasons, which they have argued, for regretting that process. They see the possibility of a new Maplin project at some time. I cannot comment on that, but I can say that even if it came about the House would then have to take a new decision. The legislation now on the statute book would almost certainly be irrelevant; the existing authority would not be relevant to those circumstances. Therefore, it seems to me right, in the light of the airport statement made by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Trade, that the Bill should be passed.
The authority's final report and audited accounts will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the transfer date. It may help hon. Members to know that the authority's assets amount to no more than a few pounds in a bank account, whilst its accrued debts of £2½ million will be increased to £2·6 million by the end of this month because of further interest charges.
I said earlier that it was clear that there were no votes in airports. Nevertheless, any Government must face the issue and try to work out a rational airports policy. I think that it was the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)—he has apologised to me for not being able to be here at this stage of the debate—who recognised that this Government were probably the first to seek a national airports policy. Although I take no personal credit, I think that it is a credit to the Government that they are attempting to do that. The means by which they are attempting to do it also deserve some credit.
The hon. Member for Chingford referred to the previous Government's policy as a strategy, but not a national strategy, because it was not. Whatever Maplin may have been, it was not that. The fact that we have set our hand to trying to work out a national airports

strategy is a great credit to this Government.
In working out that strategy, we have gone to great lengths to consult as widely as possible. Many compliments were paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) on the degree to which over the years during which he has occupied his present office he has been prepared to listen to representations by hon. Members, particularly when they speak with the authority of Members representing constituencies directly affected by airports policy.

Mr. Raison: Will the House as a whole be consulted on the new strategy? A number of my hon. Friends and I have asked whether we may have a debate on the matter in the near future. Can the Minister give us an assurance on that?

Mr. Barnett: In my position, I can give no assurance about the business of the House. I should very much welcome such a debate, just as I welcome tonight's debate. One assurance I can give is that when the Government come forward with their strategy, presumably in the form of a White Paper, there will be a debate, but the best I can offer—

Mr. Raison: That is not good enough. It is insulting the House to say that everyone else is allowed to make comments on the consultative document but that we shall not be able to do anything until we have the White Paper.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman might have waited until I had finished my sentence. I have said that I am not competent to make a promise on this matter. I was about to say that I shall put the views that he has expressed to my right hon. Friend, the Lord President. My right hon. Friend will decide whether such a debate can take place. I accept and agree that it is highly desirable that there should be such a debate. I should very much welcome that possibility. However, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are considerable pressures on the parliamentary timetable.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was the Government's aim to consult everyone but Members of Parliament. That is not so. A number of Members have rightly and properly used the opportunity of this debate to present their views.


We have received deputations from local authorities and a wide range of other bodies, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central, and I will be more than delighted to receive deputations from individual Members irrespective of whether they are accompanied by their constituents. The hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends could well take advantage of that opportunity, because that is the way in which the consultative process is being conducted.

Mr. Raison: It is not good enough to say that Members should be expected to make their representations through delegations. The place for discussing a consultative document of this sort is this House. The previous Under-Secretary of State said on 17th March that that was the intention. I hone that the Government will not slip away from it.

Mr. Barnett: Indeed it was the intention, but sometimes Governments who express such hopes are not always able to fulfil them. Sometimes the Governments are dependent upon the generosity of the Opposition in giving them Supply Days. Such a move would assist us in arranging the debate for which the hon. Gentleman is asking. I shall put the views that have been expressed in this debate to my right hon. Friend the Lord President, but my right hon. Friend will undoubtedly take cognisance of the fact that we have had a considerable and useful debate in which a wide variety of points have been expressed.
The House will recognise that I am in no position to make any promise or anything of the kind about a debate, but I shall make the strongest representations to my right hon. Friend in asking him for a debate.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I shall not press the hon. Gentleman on that matter as I understand his difficulty, but when he makes representations to the Lord President I ask him to bear in mind that some of us are aware of the rules of the House on Third Reading procedure. I said earlier that there were a number of matters arising out of the strategy document that I wanted to make but that I knew I was unable to do so.

Mr. Barnett: I recognise the justice of the hon. Gentleman's comment. In

the light of that, I shall make representations to my right hon. Friend. I am sure my right hon. Friend will read everything that has been said in this debate, quite apart from taking note of what I may say to him personally.
A great many justifiable views have been expressed about the way in which airports affect individual constituencies. Many hon. Members have shown an understanding of the dilemmas that the Government face. Attention is drawn to one of the dilemmas in paragraph 2.11 of the first airport strategy document at page 10. It illustrates exceedingly well one of the arguments against the Maplin project:
In terms of the service provided by the industry, airports should be developed as near as possible to the potential user, which normally would require airports to be sited near the centre of major conurbations. The expansion of existing airports also provides economies of scale both to airline and airport operators, improved facilities for interlining and the avoidance of airlines having to split their operations between a number of different airports.
I commend that to hon. Members. It illustrates the difficulties which a Government face when trying to design a national airports policy. If one of the priorities, for sound economic reasons, is that so far as possible one should ensure that airports are placed close to those who will use them, inevitably one is likely to need to place airports near to conurbations or near the places where people live. This creates the tensions and dilemmas with which we have been concerned this evening. It was an argument, a perfectly respectable one, which could be used, and, indeed, was used, against the Maplin project. It explains why the creation of an airports policy is bound to cause difficulty and bound to cause hostility among people wherever decisions are made for the expansion of a particular airport.
I come now to some of the points made by hon. Members during the debate. From the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), who apologises for not being able to be here at this stage, we had a welcome for the Bill. He pointed out that one of its consequences will be to end planning blight in his area. Therefore, he benefits as a consequence of the decision which has been taken, and I


am sure that his constituents will welcome the end of uncertainty as a consequence of the Bill becoming law.
I again took full cognisance of what was said by the hon. Members for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), both of whom made powerful speeches about the effects of Gatwick on their constituencies. Both referred particularly to noise, and the hon. Member for Dorking spoke of urban sprawl. I should make clear to the hon. Member for East Grinstead, in case it was not clear to him, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, has placed a quite clear limit on jet movements at night. I think that the figures for Gatwick will illustrate this. In 1972 there were 5,152 night movements. In 1975, as a result of the quotas which my hon. Friend set, the number fell to 3,100. That is an improvement. That is all one can say, but I wish to emphasise also that my hon. Friend and I both recognise that this matter has to be seriously considered, and it is in fact being seriously considered with a view, possibly, to seeing what further may be done.
The hon. Member for East Grinstead and his hon. Friend the Member for Dorking both referred to the effects of any possible expansion of Gatwick—the effects that it might have on congestion and the development of urban sprawl in their areas. I recognise that the South-East Standing Conference document expressed misgivings about what could result from a second terminal at Gatwick. Those misgivings were put to my hon. Friend and myself when representatives of the standing conference came to give evidence to us a month or two ago.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) took a very balanced view of the situation in the sense that he recognised the pride which Hillingdon takes in Heathrow Airport, although he raised again, as he did in Committee, the problem of ground congestion resulting from the increasing use of Heathrow.
In view of what was said by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), who also apologises for not being with us at this stage, I ought to point out—I think he is probably aware of it, though he did

not mention it—that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central has tried to alleviate the problem affecting his constituency by splitting the Mole Valley route. The hon. Gentleman asked what alternative strategy the Government have in the light of the abandonment of Maplin. At this stage we have no alternative strategy as such, and certainly not one that we could announce in the middle of a consultative process. It would be wrong for the Government to prejudice that process or, indeed, to anticipate the results and the decisions which will finally be made.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) objected to that part of the Bill which states that the authority should cease to exist immediately. Clearly he saw part of the solution to the problems in his constituency in the continued possibility of Maplin. The hon. Gentleman also said that he was worried—other hon Members have expressed this concern—that, with the fall in aircraft traffic, one consequence would be a slower move to the quieter type of aircraft. Our evidence is that, although operators may be buying the older type of aircraft, quieter engines are being installed in those aircraft. I hope that that is some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) referred particularly to night landings at Heathrow. We are looking at this problem. We agree that it needs to be considered. I ought to reassure the hon. Gentleman on one matter. If I understood him correctly, he thought that there was the possibility of an additional runway being built at Heathrow. That does not appear in the plan as we understand it.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) referred to the seaport. I ought to emphasise, because he may not be aware of it, that this legislation does not affect the possibility of the development of the seaport. It is possible that any proposal would be outside the area referred to in the 1973 Act. Therefore, the possibility of the Port of London Authority developing the seaport need not necessarily be affected by this legislation.
I was interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), who criticised the way in


which the Maplin decision had been made. I hope that the House can learn a good deal from that experience and that the Government, too, can learn to design a national airports strategy on positive principles rather than upon negative principles which may have informed the decision on Maplin to much too large an extent.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) welcomed the funeral of Maplin and expressed the hope that we could, as it were, move airports to other parts of the country. I re-emphasise the point I made earlier: some 80 per cent. of traffic is generated in South-East England. This is the basic problem with which we are faced. I wish that it were otherwise. The fact is that those are the figures, and they are bound in some degree to influence the national airports strategy regarding the location of airports.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said about the M4 and the effect that this has on his constituency. I wish that there was an easy answer to this problem. We shall take that matter very much on board.
The hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), in an interesting speech, raised arguments that I well know, because we have both considered in Committee the New Towns (Amendment) Bill. Regarding his arguments about the pressure of the development at Gatwick on Crawley New Town, it is fair to remind the hon. Gentleman that if one had gone ahead with the Maplin project the pressure and the cost would have been all the greater, because one would have had to start a new town almost from the beginning. Therefore, in national terms, though perhaps not in local terms, that may be a fair answer to his point. We are well aware of the point and I should like to write to him about it at some stage.
The hon. and learned Member for Beconsfield (Mr. Bell) referred to what he thought was a remark made by my right hon. Friend when he made the statement about the cancellation of Maplin. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he thought my right hon. Friend had said that this would imply a massive increase in traffic at other airports. I can find no such reference in my right hon.

Friend's statement, which I have in front of me.
The other point that I ought to make to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that I was little surprised by the suggestion that he appeared to be making that in some ways the diminuation of noise that might come as the result of fewer aircraft or quieter aircraft was no answer to people's problems. I would give up any hope of trying to please the hon. and learned Member's constituents, or any others, if I thought that that were true.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not get me wrong. I said that it was gratefully received but that there was a level above which people remained sensitive to aircraft noise and that, while a diminution down to that level was a mitigation, it did not solve the psychological problem of extreme aircraft noise.

Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for explaining that. At the same time, I think he would recognise, as I would—I think he did so in his speech—that the problem of aircraft noise is not easy. At present the Government are dependent upon the NNI contour in decisions, but nevertheless, the factors that both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and I would want to look at very carefully relate to the sort of issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman was raising and the fact that from many points A view noise is not an easily objectively measured factor in people's lives.
Towards the end of his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked for a solution. As I have already explained, we have not yet reached that stage. What the Government have set their hands to is the designing of a national airports strategy. In doing that, we are consulting as widely as we possibly can interests that are directly involved. Ultimately a strategy will have to be announced. That strategy will involve the development of certain existing airports, without doubt.
Whatever that strategy is, one result which we must learn from this debate is that it is bound to be unpopular in many quarters. However, ultimately the Government must take a brave decision, though perhaps a difficult decision. That decision must be taken for positive


reasons and, indeed, it must be related to the environmental issues which are being raised, very rightly, by those who come to see my hon. Friend and I which have been raised by hon. Members in this debate.
That is all I can say in respect of the variety of issues which have been raised. I hope very much that in the light of

Question accordingly agreed to.

what I have said I can commend the Bill to the House, and I very much hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 4.

Division No. 321.]
AYES
[9.00 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Archer, Peter
Harper, Joseph
Richardson, Miss Jo


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hooley, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Horam, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Roper, John


Bates, Alf
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bidwell, Sydney
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ryman, John


Body, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cartwright, John
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lamborn, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lamond, James
Small, William


Cohen, Stanley
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Snape, Peter


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Corbett, Robin
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Litterick, Tom
Stott, Roger


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strang, Gavin


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cryer, Bob
MacKenzle, Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney)
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tuck, Raphael


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, Max
Urwin, T. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ward, Michael


Dunn, James A
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Dunnett, Jack
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
Moate, Roger
Whitehead, Phillip


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Noble, Mike
Winterton, Nicholas


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Oakes, Gordon
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ford, Ben
Ogden, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Freeson, Reginald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Gilbert, Dr John
Palmer, Arthur



Golding, John
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. John Ellis and


Grant, John (Islington C)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Ted Graham.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Perry, Ernest





NOES


Fookes, Miss Janet
Jessel, Toby
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fry, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Dr. Alan Glyn and




Mr. Ronald Bell.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 6

ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING CIVILIAN COURTS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 40, at end insert "under subsection (12) below".

9.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we shall also discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. Wellbeloved: This group of amendments, and indeed all the other amendments that will be considered during this debate, are of a technical and drafting nature. They are designed to clarify and to make explicit the way in which the various parts of the necessary machinery will work in order to give effect to these proposals.
Hon. Members will be aware that the major innovations in the Bill are the provisions in Clauses 6 to 9 with Schedules 3. 4 and 9, whereby powers are introduced so that civilians accompanying the Services overseas may be dealt with in a way as far as possible similar to that in the United Kingdom. It has therefore been necessary to dovetail some new provisions into the existing structure of the Service Discipline Acts. Further work on this, and on the consequential subordinate legislation, has been proceeding since the Bill was read a Third time in this House.
One result has been to reveal a few areas where improvements to clarify the Bill's drafting are desirable, and the amendments moved in another place—all of a technical, and I believe, uncontentious nature—are designed to effect this. Apart from those concerned with the commencement of the various provisions and a couple of other very minor points, all relate only to those parts of the Bill affecting civilians.
I also appreciate that initially the number of these amendments—there are over 60—may appear daunting, but I hope that since many of them are related and may be grouped together, and since none of them effects changes of substance, not to consume too much of the House's time.
In moving Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, I should mention that all concern the jurisdiction in the standing civilian courts of assessors and lay members. They are designed to make it clear that an assessor or lay member may sit only in juvenile cases. In this way practice in these courts will be broadly in line with that of civil courts in England and Wales.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I agree that Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are fairly normal and self-explanatory. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would explain what is meant by the first amendment which inserts at the end of line 40 the words "under subsection (12) below". It appears that there are two types of person who may be assessors at a trial. The first is appointed under subsection (12) and the other under subsection (13). In the first case one has to look back to subsection (6) and in the second case back to subsection (8). The difference is not clear.
9.15 p.m.
I studied the report of the Committee stage in another place and found that Lord Winterbottom had no idea what this all meant. He said he hoped to be able to explain it on Third Reading because he had not had time to study the matter previously.
As is often the case, quite an interval elapsed between Committee and Third Reading when there was virtually no one in another place. Lord Winterbottom was able to rattle through his speech and none of the people who asked questions in Committee was there for Third Reading. I finished reading the report not much wiser than when I had started.
However, I did not worry too much because I knew that the Minister would be able to tell me tonight what it means. Will he elucidate the first amendment by telling me what sort of people the Lord Chancellor may put on a list under


subsection (8)? They will be the people referred to in subsection (13). Subsection (12) does not apply to those cases to which subsection (13) applies and it is almost impossible to understand the first amendment unless one understands subsections (6), (8), (12) and (13).
On the third amendment, I understand that the advantage of the standing civilian courts is automatically available in appropriate circumstances, but that if someone brought before them claims the right to court martial, he may have it. What will happen if some of the people jointly charged are juveniles and others are not? It seems a little odd to me.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not have the great attribute of being a lawyer and we all suffer from time to time from the difficulty of interpreting statutes. The purpose of the amendments which the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has queried is to allow the magistrates in the standing civilian courts, when trying juveniles, to have the option of being assisted by an assessor, who would not have a vote, or members who would be more highly qualified and would have a vote in that court.

Amendment No. 3 is designed to make clear that where a juvenile is tried with an adult, the magistrate sits alone. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will be satisfied with this brief explanation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 7

JURISDICTION OF STANDING CIVILIAN COURTS

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 5, line 19, leave out from "he" to end of line 23 and insert
or any person jointly charged with him elects to be tried by court martial in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of any Order made under this Act

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
No changes of policy are involved, but for the benefit of users it was considered,

on reflection, better to set out with precision what was previously implicit. These amendments therefore provide clearly that an accused has the right to elect trial by court martial instead of by standing civilian court, and that if this right is exercised by an accused, or by a co-accused jointly charged with him, steps shall be taken for the case to be heard before a court martial.

Mr. David Walder: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that these are basically drafting amendments, and I hate to sound a little like the Bar examination, but the sort of problem which exercises my mind is this. What happens if, for instance, a civilian and a soldier are charged jointly and the soldier exercises his right to be tried by court martial? What happens if an adult and a juvenile are jointly charged? What is the procedure? Are both sets of rights guaranteed in that situation?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am delighted to be able to assist the hon. Gentleman. If a Service man and a civilian are jointly charged, they will be charged together by court martial, since the Service man would not be amenable to jurisdiction in the standing civilian court.
Where two or more civilians are due to be tried together by a standing civilian court, and one or more but not all elect to be tried by court martial, as is their right under the Bill, then all of them will be tried by court martial together. It is right that they should stay together for trial. Indeed, this is the rule in the civil courts. The principle will apply where all the accused are adults or all juveniles, or where some are adults and others are juveniles.
Concerning the instance where two civilians, one an adult and one a juvenile, are jointly charged and come to trial before a standing civilian court, the court will be constituted by a magistrate sitting alone.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that brief explanation. If there are any subsequent doubts that he or any other hon. Member has on these very detailed legal points, I shall be more than delighted to ensure that they receive a full reply by some other means than in the course of this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8

POWERS OF COURTS IN RELATION TO CIVILIANS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 5, line 39, leave out "pass consecutive sentences" and insert "award consecutive terms".

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is merely a refinement to enable the drafting to tie in with terms already used in conjunction with Service judicial proceedings. As it is such a minor drafting amendment, I commend it to the House, I hope without contention.

Mr. Ronald Bell: This will be regarded as contention, but I mention this matter because it strikes me as odd. People sometimes must have terms of imprisonment passed on them, but I do not think they often regard these as awards. The word "award" is usually reserved for more honorific occasions. If the Minister will look at his own Amendment No. 43, he will see these words:
(5B) The term of any sentence passed by a court-martial on such an appeal shall … begin to run from the time from which it would have begun to run if it had been passed
and so on. The amendment further reads:
(5C) Subject to sub-paragraph (5B) above, a sentence passed on such an appeal
and so on.
It does not, therefore, appear that the word "award" is such an important piece of Service phraseology as to justify an amendment of what is in the Bill already. This is perhaps rather an awkward question for the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not mind if he writes me a long letter about it, but it does rather seem that it is not Service phraseology.

Mr. Wellbeloved: May I take up the hon. and learned Gentleman's very generous offer and enter into correspondence with him on this point?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9

CONSTITUTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL FOR CIVILIANS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 6, line 23, leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs".

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may consider Lords Amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 37, at end insert—
(fff) the reference to an officer under instruction in section 93(1) above shall include a reference to a person under instruction who is qualified for membership of courts-martial under paragraph (ff) above;

Mr. Wellbeloved: That will be convenient, Mr. Speaker. These amendments introduce no change of policy, being designed to clarify procedures at courts martial to provide for Crown servants sitting under instruction.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I wish to refer to Lords Amendment No. 9, in Clause 22, the closing words of which are
… this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but we are dealing with Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 at the moment. We shall be coming to Amendment No. 9 presently.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I thought that the Minister was referring to the following amendment.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I was.

Mr. Speaker: In that event, I must apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Perhaps he will proceed.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I was referring to the last few lines of the insertion proposed by their Lordships—

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister referred to the next amendment, I think he meant that he was dealing with Amendment No. 7 and also with Amendment No. 8.


Amendment No. 9 deals with a totally different subject.

Mr. Wellbeloved: It may be that. inadvertently, I confused the issue. I moved that this House should agree with Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I have a special point to make on Amendment No. 9.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to have the hon. Gentleman's confession. I was right in the first place.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I wonder whether the Minister could say what Amendment No. 8 means?

Mr. Wellbeloved: This again is a drafting amendment to obtain greater clarity, and again I shall be happy to take up the point in greater detail.
This amendment was designed to clarify the procedures at courts martial where Crown servants were sitting under instruction. It introduces no change of policy, but it helps to effect more fully the intention behind the clauses.
Under Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure (Army) 1972, an officer may remain with a court martial throughout the proceedings as an officer under instruction. Section 93(1) provides that an oath shall be administered to such officers. Since references to such officers shall now include references to the appropriate Crown servants, the latter will now be required to take an oath as well.
That is the purpose of this very simple amendment. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell).

Mr. Ronald Bell: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reading word for word what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said in the House of Lords? Could he have been reading the same document, and what does it mean?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall take advantage of the procedure adopted by my noble Friend Lord Winterbottom, not only by using his words but also by adopting his subsequent practice. By that I mean that I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman with a detailed explanation of the point on which he requires elucidation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

CITATION ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 12, line 36, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
(7) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on the day this Act is passed, namely—
@
section 1;
section 10;
section 17(1);
section 20(a);
section 21;

subsections (1) to (4) and (7) to (9) of this section;
subsection (5) of this section so far as it relates to paragraphs 5, 12 and 21(2), (4) and (5) of Schedule 9; and
subsection (6) of this section so far as it relates to the repeal of the following, namely—
the Naval Knights of Windsor (Dissolution) Act 1892,
section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 1971,
section 10(4) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, and
section 5(3) of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.
( ) Subject to subsection (7) above this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment concerns the commencement of the various provisions in the Bill. Not all of these provisions can come into effect immediately on Royal Assent, since there remain a number of important and time-consuming tasks—among them the consequential amendments to Service manuals and the training of the personnel who will be involved with the new procedures. Although all these matters are in hand, in the Services, the Ministry of Defence and the other Departments concerned, they are not expected to be fully resolved until well into 1977.
This sort of time scale accords entirely with the normal custom on the Service Discipline Acts. The new subsection (7A) therefore provides with the


present subsection (8) that most of these provisions shall come into force on such date or dates as the Secretary of State may by order made by Statutory Instrument appoint, and is no different in principle from the old subsection (7).
However, it is considered that some matters could and should come into force without delay, and the new subsection (7) therefore provides for their immediate effect on Royal Assent. Apart from the continuation and renewal sections, these are chiefly those provisions that bear particularly on individuals, the new powers in relation to the graver sentences that may be imposed on juveniles, and the application to civilians found guilty under the Service Discipline Acts of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I think that the House will welcome their speedy introduction.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I hope that my third attempt to intervene will lead to satisfaction. I refer to the last lines of Amendment No. 9 which say:
This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
I do not think that the Secretary of State should have the authority to bring this Bill into effect until he has remedied one very grievous anomaly—the anomaly whereby a member of the IRA, caught by the Armed Forces and convicted of terrorism, can be awarded £11,000 in damages for having a bag put over his head during interrogation, while our soldiers who are wounded and often killed on duty receive no such munificence.
The Secretary of State has a very special responsibility to Service men. He must look after their interests very carefully because nobody else is in a position to do so. It cannot be emphasised too often what a remarkable job our Armed Forces are doing in terrible conditions in Northern Ireland and their conduct is an example to the whole nation.
In passing a Bill designed to clear up a number of relatively minor matters affecting Service men, we should not be so insensitive as to omit any reference to this huge and glaring anomaly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman is straying beyond the terms of the amendment.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not seek approval at this stage. I merely draw to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention the fact that the Question is, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment". We cannot discuss what should be an amendment, only what is in it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I believe, then, that the Secretary of State should not be authorised to bring this Bill into effect at all until the unfairness I have mentioned is remedied.

Mr. David Walder: I shall leave out subsection (6) and resist the temptation to send my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) a postcard on previous matters. When we come to subsection (7) and the Secretary of State's putting this whole procedure into force, we recognise that obviously it will take some time to train and accustom personnel to work what is, in fact, a new system. We accept that there must be some delay.
I do not wish to sound carping but I recollect that there were plans for this sort of Act in the possession of the previous Administration. In fact, there has been a great deal of time spent on boiling this particular egg, including the time taken in Standing Committee. Therefore. I urge that in the interests of the Service personnel and their dependants the time should be as short as possible.

Mr. Wellbeloved: It is our intention to act as speedily as possible in introducing these provisions into full operation. The training of personnel must be undertaken very carefully, particularly in respect of the standing civilian courts and the administration necessary to maintain them. There is also the question of translating the detailed technical and legal points of the Bill into language more readily understood by officers of the Forces who have the responsibility and duty of operating the Bill.
I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's views, including his opinion about the urgency, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I cannot deal as fully as I might have wished with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), but I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the


Army in Northern Ireland. Whatever may be one's views on the issue, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that our soldiers in the situation with which they are confronted act with great courage and restraint.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

STANDING CIVILIAN COURTS

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 15, line 8, leave out "higher authority" and insert "the directing officer".

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may also discuss the following Lords Amendments 11 to 47.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The schedule deals with the procedure of the new standing civilian courts. I should first emphasise that no changes of policy are involved. As I mentioned earlier, this is the area that is the most novel for the Services, and long and careful scrutiny has been given to the practical and legal problems of incorporating the standing civilian courts provisions into the present structure which has been set up under the Army and Air Force Acts. As a result of this scrutiny and of preliminary drafting of the subordinate legislation required, the need for a number of amendments has been revealed.
Many of these amendments—Nos. 10 of 17, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 36 and 47—effect a change of terminology to assist users of the Service manuals. "Higher authority" is replaced by the more specific term "directing officer". "Higher authority" is an expression already used in the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and means an officer in the disciplinary chain of command higher than the commanding officer of a unit. At various levels related to the rank of the person concerned and to the organisation within which he is working, these higher authorities have power to convene courts martial and are then called "convening officers". Now, with the introduction of standing civilian courts, a higher authority will also have power to direct trial

by standing civilian court. Since it seemed helpful to give the higher authority in these standing civilian court cases a distinctive label, he is to be called a "directing officer".
The other substantial group within this schedule consists of Lords Amendments Nos. 38 to 45. In view of the structure envisaged for the subordinate legislation, they are designed to specify with greater precision, and more aptly than before, the procedures for initiating an appeal from a standing civilian court or a petition against its finding or sentence. Also included is provision for the time from which a term of imprisonment passed by a court martial on appeal shall be taken to run and the status of such a sentence.
The remaining amendments to this schedule, like the two groups I have just discussed, introduce no changes of policy. Some I have already mentioned in connection with earlier amendments. Others bring the provisions relating to the standing civilian courts more generally into line with those for courts martial or merely make more explicit what was formerly implicit. All are drafting requirements of some nicety and of varying complexity designed to facilitate the operation of these new provisions in the Services. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. David Walder: The amendments were referred to by Lord Winterbottom in another place as making up a "dog's breakfast". That is about right. I agree with that phrase. Whether it is Pedigree Chum I do not know. When Lord Winterbottom considered the various phrases that have been used—namely, the higher authoriy, the directing authority and the convening authority—he wondered whether it was thought that the higher authority was the Almighty.
I believe that a case has been made out for more uniformity and standardisation in the three codes of law that operate for the three Services. I say that with deference to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). In Committee we were constantly coming up against slight differences of phraseology and usage. Surely the very presence of this large number of drafting amendments


makes out a case for something approaching a uniform code of law for the three Services.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) left out one word that Lord Winterbottom used in another place when describing the amendments as a "dog's breakfast"—namely, "appalling". After seeking permission to move the amendments he asked more or less the question at which my hon. Friend has hinted. He said:
When I move into legal jargon and the law, I tread with great care. With the permission of the noble Baroness, I will in fact give her an exact definition when we come to a later stage of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot help her more at this moment. I think the point she has made is extremely valid.
I do not know how he was able to say that in the circumstances. The noble Lord continued:
What is a 'higher authority'? I suppose the highest authority is God."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15th July 1976; Vol. 373, c. 455.]
I do not think that Baroness Vickers would have been much assisted by that.
The Under-Secretary of State has told us that "higher authority" is understood in Service phraseology as meaning an authority higher than the commanding officer. However "higher authority" is being omitted. I do not know whether it is enormously valuable for us to know who the person is who is being struck out. It would be more interesting if the person being put in were to be identified—namely, the directing officer. It may be that that is being suggested as a new label for the person who would otherwise have been the higher authority.
Perhaps we should take this matter fairly lightly. It seems that it was taken fairly lightly in another place. I suppose that there is a slight end-of-term atmosphere in this place, but we are being asked to accept a great many amendments.
In another place Lord Winterbottom, speaking for the Government, referred to refining the interpretation that covers a multitude of sins. However, even with reasonable diligence we do not really know what is happening. Is there a definition of "directing officer" in the Armed Forces Act? If not, and if it is merely suggested as a convenient but non-statutory descriptive term for somebody

who was a higher authority, is there a statutory definition in the Act of higher authority? We should know what we are doing. This may or may not be very important but we cannot even know that until we know what we are doing. Who is a "directing officer" and what is the significance of the change? Is it the same person under another name? If so, how do we find the definition of that person?
The Minister is later to move that we agree with an amendment which says that anything done under paragraph 11, the punitive provision, which will be done on this authority, is not to give rise to any right of action if a defect is merely technical. I feel, therefore, that we need to know with a little more clarity just where we are going.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept as valid the point which the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) makes, and I shall seek to clarify the position even further. In my opening remarks I dealt with the matter fairly briefly.
At present, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly points out, the higher authority is the officer immediately superior to the officer who is involved in the court-martial proceedings.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The immediate superior?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Immediate—or he could be higher up the chain. But he must be at least one rank superior to the subordinate officer. Because we have this novel situation in terms of the administration of the Army and Air Force Acts, with a standing civilian court, we seek to remove not only any confusion which might arise as a result of officers reading the Service manuals but any confusion which might arise with respect to civilians who are for the first time to become subject to procedures under the standing civilian court.
It was therefore felt that, to avoid such confusion, it was desirable to use the new term "directing officer". I can tell the hon. and learned Member that the directing officer is one and the same person as the higher authority, but to avoid the confusion which could otherwise arise in a fundamental change of


this nature these amendments are put to the House.
I have great sympathy with the point which the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) makes—the Select Committee made it, too—that it is desirable that the three Services should move at a reasonably rapid pace towards unified disciplinary codes and Discipline Acts. Indeed, if my memory is correct, the Select Committee suggested that at the next Select Committee in five years' time one of the main features of its deliberations should be to see whether it is possible to bring the Naval Discipline Act more into line with that of the other two Services. I hope that when the Select Committee sits again it will make real progress on what I think everybody agrees is a desirable aim.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

ORDERS THAT MAY BE MADE ON TRIAL OF CIVILIANS

Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 24, line 25, at end insert:
triable by court-martial.
( ) Any such offence shall be treated as if it were an offence against a provision of Part II of this Act.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to consider at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 49 to 56.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Again, all these amendments are quite innocuous, and, I believe, uncontentious. Some make minor but desirable improvements to tidy up the drafting, but perhaps I may briefly refer directly to Nos. 52, 53 and 56. Their effect is to specify more precisely the manner in which a parent or guardian, in certain circumstances, shall be required to attend the standing civilian court or the court martial. This is done by reference to rules of procedure in the case

of the Army and Royal Air Force and, in relation to courts martial only, to the equivalent general orders for the Royal Navy, and also by reference to the relevant provisions in the Bill.
Also worthy of separate mention is Lords Amendment No. 55, which is designed to allow regulations to be made to provide for matters which, consequential upon any Order being made under the schedule, will require such regulations, and so as to allow regulations to be made in relation to specific cases or classes of cases.
An instance where this could be desirable is in respect of the community supervision order scheme which, as a simplified amalgam of the supervision order, the community supervision order and the probation order in the United Kingdom, covers a fairly wide range of ages. Thus, it might well be useful to be able to make separate provision in regulations to meet varying needs according, perhaps, to the age and type of offender. This will enable the community supervision order to be used in a flexible fashion so as to reflect, as far as possible in the circumstances, the practices in dealing with such offenders in England and Wales.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Amendment No. 54 may be impeccable, but I should like to know whether it is a novelty or merely applies to the procedure in the new civilian courts a provision for immunity which applies in courts martial. If so, it was an odd thing to have been forgotten when the Bill was drafted. If it is a straightforward parallel with what is already the law in relation to courts martial, I do not think that anyone would wish to object to it. If it is an immunity which will apply only to these new civilian courts, obviously we shall want to look at it more carefully.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is a straightforward parallel, so no problem arises.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 8

FINANCIAL PENALTY ENFORCEMENT ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 57, in page 40, line 8, leave out
by or on behalf of the Defence Council
and insert
on behalf of the Defence Council or by an officer authorised by them".

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment to Schedule 8 alters the wording so that it ties in with the phrase used elsewhere in the schedule. No change of substance is involved. I hope that it will receive the consent of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 58, in page 44, line 10, leave out paragraph 4.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 59 to 63.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Perhaps I may make a brief mention of Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 which deal with bringing a civilian to trial before the standing civilian court. This is complex because of the elaborate structure of the 1955 Acts, and because it has to be done so that the other ways which exist of dealing with civilians under these Acts—by court martial or by appro-

priate superior authority—are not disturbed. These amendments will introduce the intentions concerning procedures for trial by the new courts much more simply and effectively by allowing for them to be prescribed within the two Statutory Instruments.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Ronald Bell: As this is the last group of Lords amendments, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his batting, which has done credit to this House and compares very favourably with that in the other Chamber.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for those kind remarks. As a non-lawyer, it is always a matter of some concern when at the Dispatch Box one faces serious, but welcome, legislation changing the law affecting the Armed Forces.
I should like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my noble Friend Lord Winterbottom who guided this somewhat complicated piece of legislation so efficiently through the other place. Various questions of legal detail were thrust upon him during the passage of the Bill. I may say that his considerable labours are greatly appreciated by me because they were of tremendous assistance in getting greater clarity.
I am delighted that the House has agreed to these amendments so expeditiously. I know that the Armed Forces of Britain will greatly welcome the changes that have been brought about in the procedures, and I am grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [26th May].

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I should remind the House that I have not selected the amendment that appears on the Order Paper.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: For me, the trouble with the Bill is that I have no real interest to declare, yet any sensible Public Lending Right Bill ought in my opinion to be giving considerable assistance to authors such as myself.
During the last 18 years I have written six books, only one of which, by the remotest stretch of anyone's imagination, could conceivably be described as a best seller. However, all those six books have been fairly extensively reviewed and some of them have even on occasion been been praised by the reviewers. I have ascertained that they are fairly widely held in Britain's public library system, and occasionally I have checked up and found that they are even taken off the shelves from time to time.
Therefore, it is possible to argue that I am more than six times as likely to benefit under a public lending right system as put forward than the average author in Britain. Yet what benefit shall I get from the Bill? If I am six times better off than the average author in regard to library holdings and loans, the

best that I can hope for is about £30—which will, of course, be taxed. If one assumes that one is paying the basic rate of tax, which I fear is rather an optimistic thought, it will be found that at the end of the day I am getting the equivalent of three parking tickets in central London.

The average author will be getting each year, when this scheme is introduced, something between the equivalent of the price of a bottle of gin and the price of a cup of tea—not very much. Indeed the Under-Secretary, in an intervention in a speech made on one of the earlier occasions when the Bill was before the House, said:
The Bill is not designed to supplement the incomes of authors at large."—[Official Report, 26th May 1976, Vol. 912, c. 594.]
When one looks at the figures involved, one can see that the hon. Lady was certainly right, because the price of a bottle of gin or the price of a cup of tea, which is what most authors will get, is certainly not a real supplement to their income. To produce these very small payments under the Bill and under the schemes that are devised there must, however, be a very elaborate administrative machine involving a registrar with a staff of perhaps 35 or 40 and a lone—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Graham.]

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 13.

Division No. 322.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Cryer, Bob
Gilbert, Dr John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Golding, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
Goodhart, Philip


Barrett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Graham, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John (Islington C)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Grist, Ian


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hannam, John


Cartwright, John
Dunn, James A.
Hardy, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex
Hooley, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Horam, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Corbett, Robin
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter, Adam


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Freeson, Reginald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)




Jessel, Toby
Pavitt, Laurie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kinnock, Neil
Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lamborn, Harry
Perry, Ernest
Thompson, George


Lamond, James
Reid, George
Tinn, James


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tuck, Raphael


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Urwin, T. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn
Viggers, Peter


Litterick, Tom
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Luard, Evan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roper, John
Ward, Michael


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watkins, David


MacKenzie, Gregor
Ryman, John
Wellbeloved, James


Maclennan, Robert
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Welsh, Andrew


Madden, Max
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Whitehead, Phillip


Magee, Bryan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Marks, Kenneth
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Snape, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Newens, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Noble, Mike
Stoddart, David



Oakes, Gordon
Stott, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ogden, Eric
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Palmer, Arthur
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Alf Bates. 


Parker, John






NOES


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Hall, Sir John



Fell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Richard Body and


Fry, Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Mr. Ronald Bell.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Shersby, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHTS BILL [Lords]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Goodhart: I am delighted that the House, by such an overwhelming majority, has shown its wish that I should continue. I was saying that the administrative cost of these proposals clearly is enormous. The scheme would involve a total of 72 and a central administrative staff of 35 or 40. The Government estimated earlier that the administrative cost would be £400,000 a year, but that was many months ago. Has one ever known a Government to underestimate administrative costs in any of their schemes? [Interruption.]

Mr. Tom Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is impossible to hear the hon. Gentleman's fascinating speech.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it will not be necessary for any hon. Member to repeat such an intervention.

Mr. Goodhart: Therefore, the administrative costs outlined by the Government are likely to be excessive. I do not be-

lieve that it is possible to bring in a scheme of the kind described by the Minister at a figure of less than £500,000 on present values. I suggest that in the coming years the cost is likely further to escalate. With a ceiling of £1 million and with the sum available to 113,000 authors estimated at £400,000, the average figure will be not £5 per author but less than £4.
Why is it that a scheme, which on the face of it makes administrative nonsense, should have such widespread backing from literary organisations? There are two reasons, one selfish and the other high-minded. The selfish reason is that, just as chambers of commerce tend to be dominated by successful rather than by unsuccessful business men, so do literary organisations and authors' societies tend to be dominated by the more successful authors. Clearly, the more successful one is as an author, the more likely one is to derive substantial sums from the introduction of a loan-based scheme. That is a good reason why, in the face of all the administrative costs, one organisation after another has come down in favour of a loan-based scheme.
The high-minded reason behind the pressure in favour of the scheme is the belief that, if administrative costs take up such a high proportion of the £1 million that the sums available to authors are


derisory, future Governments will make far more money available. If £5 million were available for a public lending right, a loan-based system would give a real advantage to the considerable number of authors in this country.
I do not believe that the system outlined rather tentatively by the Under-Secretary in the opening stages of the debate many months ago will be of real benefit to anyone.
My alternative suggestion is that we should help authors at the moment, rather than at some time in future, by introducing a scheme based not on loans but on the number of their books on library shelves. This figure is administratively easy to ascertain.
If an author could prove that the library system held 24 copies of his books, he would be eligible for a tax credit of, say, £20 or £25. In our present highly-taxed system, even the poorer authors pay tax and such a tax credit would be of substantial benefit to them.
I have been to the regional library headquarters and seen how easy it is to find out which books are kept in the library system. The administrative cost of the scheme which I am suggesting would be one-fifth of that proposed by the Government. They propose a loan system without loans—a tactical exercise without troops. We know that there is no money in the kitty for this purpose this year, next year or the year after.
We are play-acting in this debate. We ought instead to be thinking of alternative ways of helping our hard-pressed authors.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: The arguments advanced in favour of the scheme have been extremely persuasive, as one would expect when such skilful wordsmiths as Brigid Brophy and others have been campaigning for a long time for this change in the law.
The Government's proposals are more fundamental than some people might appreciate, and we ought to consider the possible objections before committing ourselves irrevocably to a step which some authors might come to regret for some of the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart).
As the law stands at present, if A sells something to B, B can do whatever he likes with it unless A has stipulated some condition accepted by B. The Bill intends quite clearly to depart from that principle.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: What about copyright?

Mr. Body: My hon. and learned Friend mentions copyright. Copyright is a right in itself. It has been a right in itself, and a saleable right, for a very long time. If my hon. and learned Friend has a copyright over something of which he may not have been the author, he can dispose of that.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend clarify his concept that if A sells something to B, that person can do what he likes with it?

Mr. Body: It does not follow automatically. Suppose that my hon. and learned Friend writes a book. I understand that he has done so, and no doubt it is an excellent book. I hope that for his sake he has ensured that there is a copyright, because a copyright is not automatic. This is the difference. In the ordinary way when a transaction takes place and some object is sold, a book or anything else, the vendor reserves no rights whatsoever unless he specifically stipulates that he witholds those rights. May I say, in the presence of my hon. and learned Friend, that if it is not the law of Scotland it is certainly the law of England.
The Bill seeks to change the law, and we should pause to see whether it may not act to the detriment of the very large number of less successful authors, of whom I must count myself one.
If authors feel so seriously that the present system is unfair and that the libraries are being harsh towards them, they have the right, obviously, through their publishers, to withhold their sales to libraries. One knows, however, that no author or publisher would dream of taking such a step. A large part of the publishing world—and, therefore, many authors—depends almost entirely upon its sales to the public library system.
There are some 6,000 public libraries, including the mobile branches of our county libraries. In other words, there


are 6,000 outlets for the lending of books. It has been estimated that through those 6,000 outlets no less than 600 million lendings are made every year. That is a fantastic number. Every lending is at public expense, and rightly so. It is public money that is making this enormous number of lendings available.
I think it was mentioned in the debate on the previous occasion that the libraries purchased some 18 million books in 1972. As the price of most books has at least doubled since then, one must assume that some £40 million worth of books is now being purchased by our public library system.
But the public libraries are not the only purchasers. The State as a whole, through the education system and in other ways, is now buying some 40 per cent. of the books now published. This gives the State, in its different forms, enormous patronage. It is a patronage to which many publishers and many authors—particularly the less-successful authors—are indebted. I submit that, but for that patronage, not hundreds but perhaps thousands of titles which come out annually would not find any market or outlet whatever.
Those of us who can only be described as unsuccessful authors are indebted to the present system. Anyone who has experience of trying to get a book published knows that, in many instances a publisher will limit his print to 2,000 and no more, knowing that almost the whole of the 2,000 will be absorbed by the public library system; in other words, it will be public money alone which makes the book available for sale. Therefore, I think that it is unfair—I say this with respect to those authors, and I notice that one of them who has been in the forefront of this campaign is with us in the Gallery tonight—to have thrown quite so many stones at the public library system. Many authors and many publishers owe a considerable debt to the present system.
I wish to put some questions to the Under-Secretary about the economics of this measure. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said when he asked whether this was really the right way to help authors and whether we should not find ourselves

setting up some kind of bureaucratic institution which would not justify the expense.
We are assured that the total cost of the central fund—of the scheme—will be no more than £1 million. I appreciate that this perhaps envisages merely a stepping stone, that it is only £1 million for the time being and that those who are really promoting the campaign expect that it will be very much more than £1 million of public money eventually. Assuming, however, that the scheme which is adopted is the loan scheme and not the other scheme, we know that there are some 113,000 authors who are expected to benefit from it. It must follow from that that the maximum that an author can obtain will be less than £10. That assumes that the whole £1 million will go to the authors, with not a penny piece being spent on administration.
We know also that the £1 million must cover the entire cost of administration—

Mr. Robin Corbett: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. My mathematics are not all that they should be, but 113 times £10, even in my arithmetic, does not add up to £1 million.

Mr. Body: I left off a nought. I am a deflationist but not a mathematician. In any event, it is clear that in the course of a year the authors do not stand to gain very much more than what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham described as the equivalent of a bottle of gin.
But perhaps I may probe the costs of administration. In view of some of the facts that we have been given, I am not at all clear that the estimate of £400,000 can be accurate. We are told that the staff will consist of between 35 and 40 people. We must assume that they will be based in London. Anyone who has been concerned with any business or charity in the centre of London knows that the salary of an employee is only about half the total cost of employing him, bearing in mind such matters as superannuation, luncheon vouchers or canteen facilities, rent, the telephone and all the rest. These are items which are increasing in cost every month in central London. Therefore, one must double the salary bill in order to determine the true cost.
If one assumes that the average salary is perhaps £5,000—and this time I will get my arithmetic right—the cost would then amount to £400,000. But this is not the end of the matter. An undertaking was given in another place that the cost to the libraries themselves in calculating what would be due to authors would be met out of the Central Fund. The libraries are involved in 600 million borrowings. Therefore, there will be a sub-industry engaged in calculating how much the authors should receive. This is a function not of the registry but of the library staffs themselves, otherwise the local authorities. Therefore, this item of expenditure must be added to the cost of running and servicing the registry in London. One must assume that computers will be introduced to streamline the way in which these calculations are made.
I hate to talk of such trifling things as postage. I shall probably be derided by the authors and others who hold the principle dear, but it is something which must be considered. The cost of distributing 113,000 cheques every year to the authors will be half as many pounds, so here is another £50,000 in administration, not going to the authors directly, but coming out of the Central Fund, all of which should be available for the authors.

Mr. Fairbairn: How does my hon. Friend imagine that the public libraries in Weem and Dull in my constituency can computerise the number of times his book is borrowed?

Mr. Body: That will be easy. I am more concerned about my hon. and learned Friend's book. I am sure that every one of his constituents would wish to borrow it.
There will be numerous complications. Postage is something which has to come out of the measly figure of £1 million. Charities have been criticised severely recently for spending as much as 20 per cent. on administration and leaving only 80 per cent. for their beneficiaries. Here we may have the reverse. We may have 80 per cent. being spent on administration—if my calculations are correct, and I accept that they might not be—and only 20 per cent. going to the authors.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Will my hon. Friend address

himself to the principle involved? We have heard an awful lot about authors getting only the equivalent of a bottle of whisky or a glass of beer. Most authors, however, want this measure. There is an important principle here. They want some reward when the public borrow their works. Could we hear more from my hon. Friend about the principle and a little less about the mechanics?

Mr. Body: Authors would rather have cash than waffle. The money counts as compensation for having their books borrowed rather than bought.
I wonder why the task of administering this scheme could not have been handed over to the Performing Right Society. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) may smirk, but those who have benefited from a scheme of that kind will not smirk. They know that the society has been extremely effective, in some quarters—the BBC would vouch for this—over-effective. It has been obtaining more and more for the beneficiaries, and the cost of administration has been notably low in proportion to what the society has been able to distribute.

Mr. Roger Moate: Will my hon. Friend concede that its administrative expenses last year ran to £2 million—a considerable sum?

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend must also be aware of how much was distributed. I think that he quoted the figures in the previous debate. A major point of his speech was how the society, from a quite small base, was able to expand the amount it distributed. I think that he used the word "escalate". Therefore, I am not sure that he has made a good point. The society has been very successful on behalf of the beneficiaries of its scheme.
The overriding objection to the Bill is its timing. In this week of all weeks, the Government are proceeding with a measure that will increase public expenditure and fail to benefit those who should benefit from it by more than £2 or £3 a year—a mere bagatelle for the average author whom it is intended to benefit. Of all the Departments for the scheme to come from, it is the Department of Education and Science. If there is one certain fact of parliamentary life, it is


that in not many months' time the Under-Secretary will be having to defend cuts in expenditure by her Department. When that day comes, she will try to persuade the House that the education of those now at school will not be affected, yet she will be defending cuts of much more than £1 million or tens of millions of pounds. They will amount to a large slice of her present expenditure on education. The hon. Lady will be doing it after having tonight defended expenditure not on education but on providing a mere bagatelle to authors.
I am not trying to make a cheap point, because I accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, a principle is involved. I hope that I am not putting it crudely when I say that the only people who will benefit are the 35 or 40 people who will have a well-paid job, probably in London, that they might otherwise not have had. It is ludicrous to think that there will be any financial benefit for the authors for years to come. The most that they can gain is a principle which I think—I repeat, as an unsuccessful author—some of them may regret, because there will be other and more effective ways of conveying a bonus to the authors who are having their books borrowed rather than purchased.
I regret this measure because it shows that the Government are not in earnest in saying that their public expenditure must be cut. Irrespective of whether we support the Bill, we take the view that there must be cuts in public expenditure unless social justice or the national interest is to be in jeopardy. I do not think anyone can seriously say that social justice will gain if the Bill is passed.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Like others who have already spoken I begin by declaring a slight interest. I have put together a number of books and I may put together some more. If the Bill were to become an Act, I should no doubt make some money out of it. However, I intend to vote against it. This is a bad Bill embodying a bad principle and it has been produced at a bad time.
The first point to be made is one that has already been put to the House by my hon. Friends—namely, that it is surely

ludicrous to say that the Government will distribute £1 million and that the cost of doing so will be £400,000. That means that 40 per cent. of the sum available will be spent on administration. That makes it a bad Bill from the very beginning. The only excuse offered for that high percentage is that in future public expenditure will rise. We are being asked to go along with the Bill not for what it is now but because it will cost even more in future.
Secondly, we know that successful authors will get up to £1,000. Why should the taxpayer at any time, let alone now, put another £1,000 into the pocket of Alistair Maclean? Do Labour Members say that they will tax their impoverished constituents to make rich authors richer? That would be an incredible proposition to come from either side of the House, but especially from a Labour Government. At the other end of the scale, the less successful authors will get only £2. Those who are less successful in commercial terms will get only £2 or £3 and the average author will get only £5. Are we saying that we shall subsidise rich people by giving them even more money while we give unsuccessful authors £2, £3 or £5? Are we to set up an administration that will cost £400,000 to do that?

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that rich authors pay a great deal of income tax. Therefore, the money will come back to the State and our impoverished constituents. It is called the clawback principle—a very good principle.

Mr. Sproat: Will the hon. Gentleman tell his constituents that it is all right to give a rich man another £1,000 because some of it will come back in tax? It is not social justice to give £1,000 to a rich man and to justify it to those who are poorer by saying that the rich have to pay back a proportion in tax. It is a bad principle and it seems ludicrously inappropriate to come from the Labour Benches.
The principle involved is more than exaggerated. First, should authors get any more money? If they should, I believe that the people who ought to pay the authors or contribute to their bank balances are those who benefit from the


authors' work—that is, those who read their books.
Taxpayers in general are already paying taxes to the central Government, who support libraries, and rates to local authorities, which support public libraries. Why should they have to pay more? If there is a case for paying authors more, or for getting them more, let the borrowers bear more of the burden. I am sure that many people would be prepared to pay. Old-age pensioners or students could be exempted, but I am sure that the generality of people using public libraries would be happy to pay a certain subscription. I should myself.

Mr. Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, as a generality, those who stand to benefit from the publishing of books are publishers, and that the way a fee for the writing of a book is arrived at is an estimate by the publisher of how many copies he will sell? In logic, therefore, does that not take us down the road that, as an alternative to the proposal before us now, perhaps a royalty arrangement between author and publisher could be arrived at so that there was a fee for the writing of the book and then a royalty on every copy sold? That would be an alternative to the borrowing public paying, would it not?

Mr. Sproat: There was such a conversation going on below me on the Front Bench that I missed some of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: That is not fair.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) were silent as the grave. It was the "silent" Whips who were making the noise. But these things happen, and I fear that I missed the full complexity of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. If he was talking about different contractual arrangements between publishers and authors, I remind him that that was one of the points I made.
I wish that my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) were here so that he could tell us what were the profits of Macmillan last year. If authors and their literary agents feel that authors are not getting enough money

out of books which go to public libraries, it is entirely up to them to make different contractual arrangements with publishers. I should not be against that. Many publishers make a great deal of money out of books. Let them pay. They make a good deal out of it. They have a direct financial link which members of the general public do not have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said that there was a principle here. If there be a principle involved, I certainly do not consider that the general public should have to pay more to satisfy that principle. It should be either those who use the libraries or publishers.
We have heard a little about what might be called the authors' poverty argument. It cannot be maintained that anyone is compelled to become an author in the same way as many of us at various times in our lives have had to take jobs which we did not much like in order to make a living. No one is compelled to become an author. There is a difference between authorship and other jobs. Moreover, it is possible to be an author and have another job as well. Many do. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) is a very successful novelist.

Mr. Moate: And historian.

Mr. Sproat: And historian. I have not read any of his history, but if it is as good as his novels it must be good. He is a reasonably rich-looking man. Do the Government propose to give my hon Friend another £1,000?

Mr. Corbett: They would get it back in tax.

Mr. Sproat: One can think of many other successful authors in this country who combine authorship with working for the BBC, being a solicitor or whatever it might be. Therefore, there is nothing in the argument about an author's need for a working wage which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. White-head) advanced in his previous speech. It was a good speech, but I recall that that phrase stuck in my throat at the time. One cannot talk about a wage for an author as one can about a coal miner's wage.

Mr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Sproat: I shall give way when I have finshed this point. In many instances it is not possible to do anything other than one's primary job, whether as a doctor or as a coal miner. An author, however, can combine his work with other jobs. Therefore, it is not the same as an ordinary job.

Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The point is that, like other professions, it can be combined with another activity. There are doctors who are also Members of Parliament just as there are authors who are Members of Parliament. It should be possible to have as one's whole-time activity the profession of writing and to be remunerated for it. That is the point we are making.

Mr. Sproat: It is possible. Alistair Maclean, to take one example, already makes a great deal of money out of it. It is not correct to talk about a wage for an author as being on all fours with a wage for a doctor or a coal miner.
I suppose that it is possible to be a doctor and a Member of this House, but I doubt whether it is possible for a Member to be a full-time doctor in the same way as full-time doctors outside this House. However, one can be what would for all normal purposes, be a full-time author and work in this House. I think that the hon. Member for Derby, North is spoiling his argument if he seeks to maintain that authorship is a job which is on all fours with being a doctor or an architect.

Mr. Fairbairn: I was desperately unimpressed by what the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said. If we are to have the view that anybody who paints ought to be entitled to obtain a viable wage by so doing, which practically nobody who paints does, we shall have to have a fee for anybody who looks at a painting that he does not buy.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. and learned Friend speaks as a very distinguished painter. I do not know whether he makes more money out of his painting than out of his books, but he makes a valid point about the dangers of extrapolating arguments from one section of the arts to another.
Authors are different from other wage earners, and writing is different from

painting and music. That is why arguments about the Performing Right Society do not have a great deal of relevance to the debate. We are talking about writing, royalties and payments to authors. Any other section of the arts that is brought in tends to be an irrelevance.
Another argument of which we have not heard much tonight, but which was mentioned on the two previous occasions when we debated this matter, was that of justice for authors. If this were a case of justice for authors, the most successful authors would scoop nearly all the money. It was explained to us, however, that that was not the case and that that was why it was to be limited to approximately £1,000 for the most successful authors. We cannot say that that is justice for authors.
I think that the hon. Member for Derby, North was half arguing that it was some kind of welfare for authors. If it is welfare that we are after, surely there are more deserving people in need than authors to whom we can distribute £1 million in welfare. I do not believe that this matter has been properly thought through.
I am amazed that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) is not now present. The last time he was on his feet he was half saying that this was some kind of litmus paper for cultural appreciation and that those who did not support the Bill were uncivilised or uncultured.

Mr. Moate: Philistine.

Mr. Sproat: Philistine. Indeed, I thought that the hon. Member for Putney uttered what, in the context of the debate, must have been one of the most Philistine sentences—and he must have thought about it—when he said that a life's work of 800 pages must be worth more than a "mere essay", as though somehow "Gone with the Wind" in 800 pages is a greater love story than Turgenev's "First Love" or that Arthur Hailey's "The Final Diagnosis" is somehow greater than Chekhov's "Ward Six". A man who can say such a ridiculously Philistine thing as that does not deserve to be listened to. Some of the authors in the Gallery tonight, if there be any there, must be ashamed of some of their friends for advancing some of this argument.
On the question of bad principles, there is here a kind of feeling that libraries are homehow villains of the piece and that somehow it is the existence of libraries that is doing authors out of sales and, therefore, money to which they are entitled. I do not think that that is so. One cannot prove it either way. To that extent, I am happy to come to the Under-Secretary's point.
I believe that authors have probably sold more copies of their books because of the existence of public libraries than they would have done if public libraries had never existed, and that they therefore already have this financial advantage. I cannot prove that, but I know that I have certainly never gone into a public library and borrowed a book which if it had not been there I would have bought. I tend to borrow books from library shelves because the books are there. If I see on a library shelf a book by P. G. Wodehouse that I have not read, I might take it off the shelf. However, it does not follow that if that book were not there I would go into a shop and buy it.
Therefore, one cannot make out a direct numerical relationship between the number of books taken from library shelves and the number of sales of which authors are thereby deprived. There are many books that would not be read at all if they were not borrowed from public libraries.
Quite apart from the well-made argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) about the contribution of public libraries to the economics of publishing, I should not have thought that there was a first novel from an unknown author that would ever have been published in the last decade if it were not for public library sales. For a print run of 1,500 copies, one would expect up to 1,000 copies to be bought by public libraries. If the publisher could not get the libraries to buy those 1,000 copies, he would not have published the book at all. Therefore, authors are deeply indebted to public libraries for getting into print at all.
I shall not go into my argument in detail now, although if I am lucky enough to be selected for membership of the Standing Committee I shall go into it at greater length. One could make a very good case for saying that most people

acquire a taste for books through public libraries. They learn the joys of literature from a public library, and then they go and spend money on books. Therefore, public libraries are encouraging the sales of authors. All these factors are ignored in the rather glib assumption that authors are done down financially by public libraries.

Mr. Corbett: By publishers.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding me. I am saying that authors want public lending right because they feel that the existence of public libraries is doing them down. That is what authors say. They say that people who borrow books from public libraries would otherwise buy them, thus paying royalties to the author, whereas when a book is borrowed from a library the royalty is paid only once, when the library purchases the initial copy. I maintain that, far from public libraries having reduced the financial benefits to authors, they have, for the reasons I have enumerated, increased the benefits for authors.
I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett). If there is a case for more money, let it be through direct subscribers or through publishers. That is why I think that the Bill is bad and why it contains essentially a false principle. I would add that this is also a bad time. Having been a Member of the House for half a dozen years, I know that nothing which happens here seems incredible. If I were not a Member, however, I would find it incredible that at a time when the country is up to its ears in debt, when we are continually having to borrow more and having to cut back on truly essential services, and when the truly deserving are not getting the money they want, the Under-Secretary comes along with a Bill to spend £1 million on authors. The average payment will be £5 per author. It just does not make sense. I would say that it was an insult to the hard-working people of this country to give away £1 million at this time of economic crisis when there are so many deserving cases of need.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I hate to interrupt the hon.


Gentleman, but it seems to have escaped the attention of Opposition Members that I am not planning to spend any money on the scheme at this time. What we are seeking to do is to establish the principle. No date is set for when the money will be spent.

Mr. Sproat: In that case, it is even more ridiculous to waste the time of the House on the Bill. In any event, apart from the cash which is being spent, what does one think that all the chancelleries which are now lending us money will say? What would the German Chancellor, who apparently had a remarkable conversation here the other day, say if he ever read our Hansard? He would say "Here are the British in terrible debt. They are not planning how to get out of their debt but are planning how to spend even more money."
Never was the spendthrift quality better illustrated than by the hon. Lady. She has admitted that she has no money to spend, but she is wasting the time of the House on this matter. She is saying "I will spend the money when I have it." It is an insult to the House and a waste of our time. It is an atrocious example to people who want to see this country pulling itself out of its economic mess. What will those people think when they see that we are debating how to spend more money?
I would say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I was truly astonished to find that apparently almost the only piece of legislation which the Conservative Party was pledged to support was the Public Lending Right Bill, when we are standing up and saying that we must cut public expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly said that we must cut public expenditure and cut the number of civil servants, yet we are apparently to go into the Lobby—at least, that is what the Conservative Front Bench will do—to support something which increases public expenditure and the bureaucracy. The people of this country will not take us seriously if we do that, and those outside the country who are lending us money will not take us seriously either. Here we are up to our ears in debt and planning to spend even more money. I hope that tonight the House will throw

out the Bill or, if not, drastically amend it in Committee.

11.4 p.m.

Miss Jo Richardson: Unlike some Opposition Members, I shall take up the time of the House for only two or three minutes. I hope that we give the Bill a Second Reading tonight. This is the third time the House has tried to get the Bill. On those occasions there have been many speeches about how it is not the time to debate a principle. For some time people there never is a time to debate the principle.
After 25 years of campaigning, as some people in this country have been doing, I believe that we should establish the principle of public lending right. I ought to say that I have absolutely no interest to declare in this matter. I am not a writer and I do not suppose that I ever shall be. I am, of course, a reader, and I am a library reader. That is my only interest in this matter.

Mr. Fairbairn: Is the hon. Lady a taxpayer? She might then have an interest to declare.

Miss Richardson: In that general sense, I suppose that I have an interest to declare. However, hon. Gentlemen opposite have all argued that they are authors or hope to become authors. All I am saying is that I am not an author or a writer.
I cannot see why we are hanging about. Other countries accepted the principle long ago. Sweden has a public lending right. Other countries have some form of public lending right or are about to have one. It is ridiculous that we should be dragging our feet. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is no date in the Bill from which the payment will operate. All we want to do is to establish the principle.
Much has been said about libraries. There have been accusations that writers are against public libraries. I do not believe it. There is no reason why they should be. The existence of libraries is in their interest. Those who oppose the Bill talk rather arrogantly about "successful" authors and about "serious" books and "trashy" books. It is arrogant to make such judgments on behalf of other people. That is for the individual to decide. That is why I welcome


the wide range which exists in public libraries.
The only sale which some writers make is to public libraries, but their books are nevertheless widely read. Many of them are light novels, read by pensioners, by housebound housewives and by those who want something to read on their way to work or in bed at night. Why should we force such people to buy books instead of being able to borrow them from the library, at the same time benefiting the writers?
There are about 6,000 libraries in this country, but there are only about 500 good bookshops with a wide range of hardbacks. The majority of people want to borrow books. They cannot afford the time or the money to look for them and buy them. Those who want to buy books must first find a good bookshop and then, if it is not in stock, order the book they want. Why should they not be able to go to a library and at least browse to discover the kind of book they may eventually want to go and buy?
Nor should we forget that writers provide employment. If they are not properly recompensed, there may be fewer of them. No one would want that. There would then be more people unemployed—not only the writers themselves but people in the printing and publishing industries and, indeed, those who work in the public libraries. There are many reasons for encouraging writers and giving them some prospect of financial benefit from the establishment of the principle of public lending right on the loan of their books.
I hope that we will shilly-shally no longer but will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Like so many of my Conservative colleagues, I support the principle of the Bill. But I wish that it had not been presented to us today when the pound is flat on its face, largely because of our level of public expenditure.
The Bill undoubtedly calls for more public expenditure—namely, £1 million more. Although we are more accustomed these days to dealing with billions rather than with millions, there is much truth in the dictum of my hon. Friend the

Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that if one looks after the millions, the billions will look after themselves. My hon. Friend is eloquent in his absence from this evening's debate.
However, there are others who in the present crisis suggest that we should begin to talk in language of priorities. I am not averse to that, but if we are to talk about priorities we must have all the priorities before us, not just one, such as that put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in his amendment. Until we have all the priorities before us, we must surely deal with our commitments. Both the Labour and Conservative Parties are committed to this Bill in principle. We are now being asked to stand by our commitment to principle.
The Conservative Party is committed to the Bill by our latest publication "The Right Approach", which states unequivocally:
We reaffirm our commitment to the principle of establishing a public lending right for authors.
I do not know who put that in. It may have been the author himself.

Mr. Fairbairn: What does my hon. Friend think the principle is—that authors should get a payment when their book is lent or that a bureaucracy should be set up to make the payments to them?

Mr. Roberts: The principle surely is that of a public lending right. I cannot believe that the best way towards "The Right Approach" begins with a denial of any part of that document.
The Minister has relieved us by her statement that no date is fixed for the Bill to come into operation. While that is some relief in regard to the implementation of the principle in connection with public expenditure, I would have thought that that statement by the Minister shows that the Government do not care as much about the principle as they would have the House and the public believe. There are many defects in the Bill, but they can be dealt with in Committee. An assurance from the Minister that the Government are prepared to consider amendments to the Bill would be very welcome.
I now wish to make some comments on the Bill. It seems to me that an


inordinately large proportion of the £1 million chargeable to public expenditure is to be devoted to administration. I think that this is wrong. I should like to see it chargeable elsewhere, possibly to those who borrow the books rather than to the taxpayer. That argument can clearly be pursued.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not my hon. Friend agree that to move from museum charges to library charges would be to go out of the frying pan into the fire?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that my hon. Friend's assessment of that transition is rather better than mine. Nevertheless, I think that there is a case for the charge being levied on the user rather than on the taxpayer generally.
I am concerned about what I call, for the want of better phraseology, the small authors, such as those in my constituency who wrote to me in these terms:
We are not members of the Writers' Guild. We can't afford such luxuries. As freelance authors we are penalised by being regarded as self-employed. Like many other writers we took care of our own pension requirements by investment and here again we are to suffer, having as a reward for our thrift and foresight to pay a surcharge on over £1,000 of unearned income.
I am also concerned about the very successful authors. I am not certain that the Bill provides an adequate limit on their receipts under the proposed scheme.

However, these matters can be put right in Committee.

What will be the position of authors who write in the Welsh language? I am particularly anxious to nurture them, as are the Government and as were their predecessors who made significant grants towards Welsh books. I am not sure that the sampling system will be fair to these authors.

I do not know whether Brigid Brophy has helped her cause a great deal. I was struck by the last paragraphs in her article in the Daily Telegraph. She wrote:
Today writers will (yet again) lobby the House of Commons. By tomorrow they will probably know whether the House is a Philistine.
I cannot understand how we can be Philistines when there are so many filibusterers around.
I regret that the Bill is being pressed on us at this time but I am relieved that no date is set for its implementation. Unfortunately, this itself is an indication of the Government's lack of concern for the principle involved.

Mr. Joseph Harper (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Joseph Harper (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 7.

Division No. 323.]
AYES
[11.18 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gilbert, Dr John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Golding, John
Parker, John


Bates, Alf
Graham, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie


Beith, A. J.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Penhaligon, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Perry, Ernest


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Horam, John
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Corbett, Robin
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roper, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jessel, Toby
Ryman, John


Cryer, Bob
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Snape, Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Luard, Evan
Stainton, Keith


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert
Stoddart, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Dunnett, Jack
Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Thompson, George


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Newens, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Noble, Mike
Urwin, T. W.




Ward, Michael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)



Welsh, Andrew
Wise, Mrs Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whitehead, Phillip
Woodall, Alec
Mr. A.W. Stallard and


Whitlock, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Wiggin, Jerry






NOES


Body, Richard
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fell, Anthony
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Roger Moate and


Fry, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Ronald Bell.


Hannam, John

Whereupon Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for closure).

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not normal for the Tellers in the Division to count as having voted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): No. The Tellers do not count.

Mr. Corbett: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member satisfied with that reply?

Mr. Corbett: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to catch your eye to speak in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member to speak.

Mr. Corbett: May I, through you Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank the House for the judgment it has made on the speech that I am about to make.
I think that it would be as well if, during the rest of this debate, we try to remember that this is not a debate on a measure that is designed to help struggling authors—that is, new and unpublished authors. If it were, I should have to declare an interest on behalf of my brother, who is both.
I say to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) that by his remarks and his behaviour a few moments ago he has demonstrated the eternal truth of what is said to fob people off: "I shall render all sorts of assistance, short of actually doing anything to help".
We are here tonight faced with trying, after 25 years—and nobody can say that

we have hurried over this matter—to establish and settle a principle—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members who desire to leave the Chamber kindly do so quietly.

Mr. Corbett: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We are here tonight trying, I hope, to establish a principle. It is a principle over which the House has not hurried. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) said, this matter has been before the public for 25 years at least, and we had the statement from the Minister that this measure will not—unfortunately, I should say—commit us to putting hard cash into authors' pockets. The purpose of the measure is to establish a principle, namely, that when an author has a book in a public library that is used quite properly—because nobody is attacking the library system—when the book is taken out on loan he should have some financial recognition for the act of borrowing.
If we were to rely upon the people of this country buying the books they wanted to read, we should have far fewer authors and far fewer titles published. What is more, that would have an effect only upon jobs in the printing and publishing industry but upon the standing of literature in this country—which I believes is important—and the money that is earned overseas from the sales of those books.
We make a contribution to the English-speaking world which is second to none, and we should be proud of it. But we are telling our authors that once they have settled negotiations with the publishers, that is the end of the matter. The publisher says he will give the author £X in advance and £Y on delivery of the manuscript.

Mr. David Walder: indicated dissent.

Mr. Corbett: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head.

Mr. Walder: I speak as an author, not a publisher. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) must be aware of the fact that by convention every contract between an author and publisher includes a percentage of royalties to the author.

Mr. Corbett: I would not go along with the statement that that happens in every case. I have some slight experience, and I know that some do not. But that leaves aside the fundamental question that there should be an equal relationship between the author and publisher. Publishers cannot cope with the number of people who want their manuscripts turned into books. An author has to find a publisher willing to publish his book. I am not saying that all publishers are villains, but merely that the relationship is unequal because of the pressure on the author to get his manuscript accepted and into print.
In an ideal world there should be better contracts between publishers and authors on a royalty basis. It is what is known in the film and record industries as "a slice of the action". A fee is paid for writing or singing, but the writer or performer wants a slice of the profits. If the authors were in a stronger position, we could look to the publishers to enter into this kind of arrangement. But that is not the real world.
We are trying to establish the principle that authors have the right to expect financial recognition of the loan of their books through public libraries. I am delighted that the Government have accepted an amendment made in another place and have substituted "works" for "books". It is right and logical to recognise those whose works appear on gramophone records and cassettes or as a painting. These works are being borrowed increasingly through libraries.
We want to see the development of the use of our libraries. We want them to do more than simply lend books. There is an increasing demand for cassettes and records, and for the visual arts

as well. If it is right to have this principle for authors, it must be right for those whose works are in associated media.
I accept the comments from the Opposition about the operating costs of administering the scheme, but I hope it will be accepted that these are precisely the points which could and should be raised in Committee. We are faced with a principle tonight: whether it is right to seek through some system, to reward authors and other artists for their works which are borrowed by the public. If the answer is "Yes", the House should give the Bill a Second Reading and settle the dots and commas in Committee upstairs.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I am not sure whether we are speaking on the Second, Third, Fourth or Fifth Reading of the Bill. It would have been disgraceful if the Government had succeeded in their attempt to curtail the debate once again while a few hon. Members still wished to speak. It is a case of the biter being bitten, because in the attempt to curtail this debate and so save time for the following debate the Government have added 20 minutes or so to the proceedings.
I support the Bill. I accept that the present could not be a worse time to introduce a new spending commitment, but I feel very strongly as a matter of principle that this small Bill, a measure which has had the support of both parties for many years, should not be abandoned. One thing that is certain is that if my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) had still been Minister for the arts after February 1974 the Bill would have been on the statute book a long time ago.
Although I welcome the Bill, I have serious reservations about the effectiveness of the proposed system of financing and administration. The low figure of £1 million for finance means that if in Committee we do not come up with a better and cheaper system of administration for the registrar and his office, or an alternative system, the net amount available to authors will be negligible. These, however, are matters for Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) has made a suggestion, which he explained to a meeting of authors and hon. Members yesterday, for administering the system through the Performing Right Society. In the light of my experience of the society, through the musical world, I consider that to be a very good idea which is well worth considering.
Hon. Members who declare themselves against the Bill are basically opposing the principle of the right of authors to be paid for the use of their work in a State library scheme, or are calling into question the sense of using public funds at this time of financial stringency. That bothers all of us on both sides of the House. If it were not for the fact that I strongly believe in the principle, and that the amount in national expenditure terms is so small, I should not be speaking in support of the Bill.
Our financial support for the arts is appallingly vulnerable in these days of crisis, yet if we allow the arts to deteriorate and contract our social fabric will also deteriorate. At a time of similar financial crisis in 1940, the Government of the day created a support fund for the arts in CEMA, the father of our present Arts Council.
I stand by the principle that, if our State library system uses the creative work of authors for its free loans, those authors should be paid. The method chosen—the loan sample system—is probably right. From my experience of the musical world and the performing rights system which applies to the use of songs and records, I am confident that our libraries will be able to operate a loans list satisfactorily.
I also welcome the Lords amendments extending the payments to cover works, which should include reference hooks. I accept that with such a limited sum available the Government will probably want to introduce these categories in stages We heard tonight that no date is set for the introduction of the scheme, but if it is introduced in two years' time—the estimated date—it should probably start with books and gradually extend to cover works and records.
I also accept their Lordships' contention that PLR should be payable to foreign authors only if their countries

make reciprocal payments to British writers. I hope that in Committee the Government will not try to reverse the amendments which have been made. They have quite enough on their plate in tackling all the other amendments which have come from another place without adding to their problems by trying to alter this measure. In so doing they would help to prevent its getting on to the statute book within the remaining four weeks of the Session.
My main concern lies in the sheer inefficiency and inadequacy of the proposed administration. Surely £1 million is not such a great deal of money to cover a library service that is making about 600 million book loans each year, especially after deducting the estimated nearly £½ million that will be expended on administrative costs.
In these rather worrying days of substantial overspending by the Government, I could not press for a larger amount to be allocated, but it is the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West that copyright should be extended for 10 years and that the funds received become the funds for the public lending right, which could be administered by the Performing Right Society. That would help to wipe out the taxpayer's liability and would please those of us who want to take the burden away from the taxpayer, putting it upon the users of books and the buyers of books. The principle of rewarding creative artists for their labour should apply to authors as well as to song writers and composers.
I turn to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). In the United States and in Germany, one book is bought for every one that is borrowed. In France, 10 books are bought for every one that is borrowed. In Britain, only one book is bought for every nine and a half books that are borrowed. The figures confirm that the present arrangements reward only partially the very successful writers and do not reward at all the younger and up-and-coming authors, those who achieve only few sales but whose popular romantic novels are read by thousands of housewives and pensioners and are borrowed free from the public libraries—

Mr. John Page: My hon. Friend has compared the ratios of


France. Germany and this country, but will he tell us the number of books per head in those countries that are either sold or borrowed? Without that information, his figures do not have a tremendous amount of meaning.

Mr. Hannam: Unfortunately I do not have those figures.
There are comparisons between Britain and Canada which highlight the difference once again. In Canada about 1,400 novels are bought per 1,000 population, whereas in Britain only 140 novels or books are bought per 1,000 population. That is not an identical comparison with the countries I quoted earlier but it gives an indication of the decline in book sales which has taken place in Britain and which is obvious when we consider the number of bookshops that have disappeared from our high streets and towns over recent years.
We have an effective free public library service but we have an appallingly low level of sales and, therefore, of financial returns to the less successful authors. The damage being done to authors by the increasing and extensive borrowing habit of the British is illustrated by the figures I have quoted from Canada and Britain. It is no good turning up our noses at the sort of novel those figures represent—namely, romantic and historical novels, Westerns and thrillers that the libraries find so popular. The evidence shows that in most cases those books are in great demand.
I believe I am right in saying that those authors receive an advance of possibly £150 for a Western, a thriller or a romantic novel. In an effort to help that type of author, I welcome the selective loans sample scheme.
I hope that we shall get a definite date for the scheme to start. I hope that it will be given tonight or in Committee. If that is not done, we shall be introducing a measure which will not be brought into effect for many years to come. It will take two years to start up the system. We are talking about the 1980s before it will begin to get under way and before any payments are made.
It seems right and sensible that reference books and other works should be included and that foreign authors from non-reciprocal countries should be

excluded, given the inadequacy of the fund. I hope that my hon. Friend's suggestion for an extended copyright fund, possibly operating through the Performing Right Society, will be considered carefully in Committee. Certainly the Bill needs improvement, and that would offer a substantial and, I hope, successful method of doing it.
In the meantime, I hope that the Bill will get a fair wind. It has been becalmed on several nights hitherto, and I hope that it will have a fair wind from the House now. Let it go to Committee, and let us hope that it will pass through the House before the Session ends. I am not sure that that is possible, but I support the Bill and look forward to its having a Second Reading fairly shortly.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I must begin by declaring a variety of interests as an author and producer of works which may be borrowed or, I hope, sold and then lent.
It seems to me that the Bill introduces not one principle but two, and this has been a source of confusion. In the first place, I think it most unfortunate that the Government, a political body, attempted to close discussion on a matter which has nothing to do with party-political issues at all. I wish to register that protest. It would not have taken long for other Members to speak, and the attempt at closure was, I thought, a piece of spite and pettiness, which I greatly regret.
The simple question of principle is whether those who produce works should be deprived of the benefit of their efforts because people can pass them around one to another or borrow them free instead of buying or paying for them. In other words, if I hire a taxi, should someone else be entitled to take it on free from wherever I stop? That is what happens to the author, and it is wrong. The author benefits from the public library but, essentially, one book is enough for everybody to read it.
That principle has never applied in this country or in any other, so far as I know, to any other form of production. Anyone who goes to a public library to borrow "Tit-willow" will have to pay for the score, but one does not pay to borrow the written word. It is an absurd


distinction. It is wrong that those who happen to write words should be penalised whereas those who write, sing or record music should have the benefit of copyright. Admittedly, the system is abused. Perhaps there are hon. Members—some even on the Government Benches, though I do not know who they are—who record on tape from discs, which in law they should not do. I do not for a moment suggest that any hon. Member below the Gangway opposite would break the law, but there is a measure of protection for those who write or record sound. There is no such measure of protection for those who produce the written word, and it is absurd that that should be so, especially when a book is something which can always be handed on to someone else without benefit to the author. The author should have that benefit.
However, although as an author I should like the benefit, I quarrel with the Bill on the manner in which it is sought to ensure that the right obtains. The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State has in mind the sum of £1 million. Where did she get that sum from? Did she count up the number of books lent and the number of authors and say that that was the right and sensible sum, or was it the upshot of the usual asinine idea that six figures are nice and useful at the beginning and £1 million would do? Is it related to anything? The answer is that it is not.
That asininity is my first ground of objection, but I find even more ridiculous the idea that there is to be a bureaucracy to administer the scheme but we are promised that that bureaucracy will not do it yet.
Let us consider this matter. We are going to set up another bureaucracy. We should be clear about that on both sides of the House. I defy anybody on the Opposition side to support the extension of bureaucracy to obtain a liberty and right for the British people. It is not necessary to extend the bureaucracy. It does not happen in order to obtain these rights for musicians, choreographers, singers, footballers or anybody else, and it is not necessary to do it for authors.
It is right that authors should get the benefit of the fruits of their copyright when a book is lent, but it is not right

that we should extend the bureaucracy to ensure it.
We have had the absurd appointment to the chairmanship of Cable & Wireless this week. Are we to have a similar post for this purpose, no doubt at £12,000 a year? The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may get it. I do not know whether he wants it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not think that he would corrupt himself by taking such a ridiculous sinecure. But someone—some bureaucrat—will be made the chief of this idiotic commission. In a year, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Government side will be writing and screaming at us "Do you realise that they are going to cut down the numbers on the Public Lending Right Commission? There are only 5,000 of us now, and they are to cut us down to 4,900. They are going to sack 100 of us."
That is what it is all about. It is absolutely mad to have all this for a few authors. There are not many, and there are certainly not many good ones. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, it will be the Alistair Macleans who will be able to buy the next shipful of gin out of the bit they get, whereas my hon. Friend, out of what he gets, will be able to afford only the stamps on the postal orders, which he cannot afford, to pay his bills.
This is not some majestic situation in which the Labour Party or the Government can claim "We are the party of culture. We are going to give this great beneficent excellence to authors." It is a situation in which in year No. 1, whenever that is—we do not know when it will be—we shall spend £400,000 merely in handing it out. That is £15 for every person in my constituency. That is just to pay, not to be given it. It is not going to authors. It is coming from them.
Part of the craziness of this country is that, when we see a freedom or a purpose, we believe that the way to obtain it is to extend the bureaucracy to create it. It has never had to happen for music, and nobody has complained. It has never had to happen for the stage, and nobody has complained. It has never had to happen for actors, choreographers, ballet


dancers, people who play in brass bands or anybody else. So why must we have a bureucracy to create a sensible extension of the law of copyright to authors?
The awful thing is that the Bill is about what this wretched bureaucracy will do. I should like to know when it will start. It will be £1 million when it starts and it will cost £400,000 to run it. I should like some details about it. Who will be the chairman? What will he be paid? Can he be sacked? What staff will he need? Will there be a separate commission in Scotland and in Wales? I am sure that the devolution Bill would be hideously offended if there were not a separate Scottish Public Lending Right Commission with a separate Scottish chairman, and a Welsh one as well—and an Irish one if necessary, an English one and a few others, and an overall commission. I do not know how many other Labour Members certain Labour Members want to get rid of, but surely we can think of other people for whom jobs could be made in the matter of public lending right.
It is utterly hideous in principle to set up a bureaucracy in order to establish a simple common law right for authors. That is what I find offensive. That is what I hope the Opposition Front Bench will oppose tonight. We are establishing a principle for authors which has nothing whatever to do with the setting up of another extension of the bureaucracy—and at whose expense? It will be at the expense of authors who are so hard up that they cannot buy bread, butter and Nescafe, who live in garrets desperately trying to write, and whose book goes to the public library. They will have to pay the tax that supports it, and so will all the pensioners, the unemployed and everyone else.
We must remember that every time we add one penny to the public burden we are adding it to human beings who have great difficulty in paying for their way of life. Therefore, let us not be fancy or stupid in imagining that if we merely throw out a word such as "million", with £400,000 to run the scheme that is all it will be. Five years after it has started, there will be new Government offices in every town in the land, even at Weem and Dull in my constituency. There will be plenty of people furnishing the offices and running about ensuring the accuracy of

the great register and deciding who is accepted and who is not.

Mr. Temple-Morris: My hon. and learned Friend is talking about some vast bureaucracy of 35,000 to 40,000 people under the stern command of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). However, at the same time, he is trying to have his cake and eat it. He is saying that he agrees with the principle of the Bill. If he does, how would he implement it without employing at least someone?

Mr. Fairbairn: I am most obliged to my hon. Friend for not listening. Just let him write a work of music. He will discover that if I want to borrow it I will have to pay to borrow it, and I do not have to have a bureaucracy to do that.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Oh, yes, you do.

Mr. Fairbairn: Not at all.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I have several times resisted the temptation to intervene, but I can no longer do so. Do I understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman that those who run the Performing Right Society and collect the money he so gladly pays are some kind of incorporate bodies, which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will be able to explain to us but which I find incomprehensible?

Mr. Fairbairn: I am much obliged to the Minister for asking that question. The taxpayer does not have to pay for the Performing Right Society. That comes out of the funds of those who receive the right. That is where it should come from. It should not be an outside bureaucracy. That is the difference and the distinction.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will further enlighten me by explaining what distinction he sees in the fact that the salaries of those people come from the funds of the Performing Right Society whereas the administrative cost of his scheme will come from the fund. That distinction is not clear to me.

Mr. Fairbairn: There is a complete distinction. I am sorry that the hon. Lady cannot see it, but I hope she will see it. Who pays into the Performing Right Society? It is those who borrow.


According to what they borrow, they pay. That is how it is paid. It is funded, and the amount that it pays is funded and regulated. In order to ensure that, it has to be paid. However, the hon. Lady is proposing to set up an organisation regardless of whether anyone ever borrows a book tomorrow or ever again.
Regardless of that, these wretched people will be there. They would not be there in the Performing Right Society. That is the difference. The hon. Lady will be spending her £400,000 regardless of whether 100,000 million books are borrowed or none. That is the distinction between an organisation that is self-supporting and a bureaucracy. If the hon. Lady does not understand that, I shall say it again and again, all night if necessary, until she does. I hope that die hon. Lady will give her assent, because I hope I have explained it sufficiently. It is a completely different situation.
The Performing Right Society employs as many people as are required by its whole borrowing. If one wants to borrow "Tit-Willow" or Handel's "Messiah", it depends upon the price one pays and the number of people who borrow it. But this organisation will simply be a vast bureaucracy. It does not matter whether book borrowing stops tomorrow or doubles. The organisation will justify its existence. It will insist on its position and it will enlarge its empire. Who will pay? It will be not those who borrow but every citizen of the country, whether he is literate or illiterate, whether he reads, buys or begs. All of us will pay for yet another extension of unnecessary inefficiency.
I am entirely in favour of the fact that an author should get the benefit of a borrowing. Of course he should, just as the painter gets a right for the reproduction of his painting and the musician gets the right for the performance of his work. But to set up yet another Department of State in order to do it is merely another extension down the road to lunacy, which is what has wrecked this country hitherto.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. John Page: Those of us who believe in the liberty of the pen and the freedom of speech were glad

tonight to be witness to the guillotine of the Chief Whip being so clogged by the dried blood of last July that, even with the weight of that payroll vote behind it, it was unable to fall tonight and stop speeches which have been made since and which, to my mind, have so far been the best in this debate. I am proud to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) in the argument they so lucidly and excellently adduced.
I would not be within the proper protocol if I did not declare an interest as an author. I was one of six who wrote a Conservative Party Centre pamphlet in 1964 which, though it was sold in smaller numbers than it deserved, was on the most important subject of cutting Government spending. It was called "Change or Decay", and, by God, we have seen the decay which has happened since 1964 because the Government machine has not been changed.
One of the most dangerous things for an MP is to visit the Chamber and listen to a debate, because it upsets his previously-held prejudices. Before this evening, I was completely and confidently of the view that the Public Lending Right Bill was a good thing, that it was fair and right for authors to receive more cash and that this was probably the most sensible way of doing it. I regret to say, however, that having listened to this debate I have become sadly disillusioned and rather unhappy, and I am now a floating writer who believes in public lending right.
Another fascinating and important discovery this evening was when we found that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and some of his hon. Friends nodded when it was said that the kind of person who would get most of the £1 million would be the Alistair Macleans. "Quite right", they said, "let the rich have more money and let them pay more taxes, but it is fair that they should have more".
The Labour Party is the party of inequality and also, thinking of Winnie the Pooh, it is the party which would wish to enshrine the heredity wealth of passed-down copyrights. That is something we should remember when equality of incomes is discussed again.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) has left the Chamber. His was the most schizophrenic contribution of all. He voted for the closure, tried to get the Tellers counted in to make it effective, and then rose to speak. That did not show a dynamic urge to let his voice be heard.
On a turnover of 6 million borrowed books, the sum of £1 million works out at one-sixth of a penny per book. I believe that the sum of £1 million was chosen because anything less would have been derisory and anything more would have been impossible. As the Bill stands, however, that sum will be increased from £1 million to £2 million to £5 million and possibly more. Even my hon. Friends, possibly, when we are the Government, will not want to be considered Philistines by authors who write letters to the Guardian saying that PLR is too low. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will not worry us."] It might. Even my hon. Friends might say "Let us have the author's vote next time: let us double the public lending right."
I am also worried about the £400,000 which is quoted as the direct cost of the scheme. It will be impossible for existing library staffs to cope with the documentation. If the name of the author and the name of the books have to be recorded, the whole business will take twice as long as it does now. There is also the PLR computer bureau to deal with the data of public borrowings. There will also be a high cost to libraries in increased staff and paper work.

Miss Margaret Jackson: There are two things that I think the hon. Gentleman has not taken on board. First, one of the reasons why the scheme has taken so long to work out is that the intention is to operate through a sample set of libraries, not every one. Second, it is intended that the libraries involved will be reimbursed. That is why this sum was fixed.

Mr. Page: I am grateful for that explanation, the second part of which is totally satisfactory.
I believe that this should not be a charge on the State. If it is required by the authors, they should in some way pay for this benefit for themselves. Alternatively, if every borrower of a book were

to pay a penny for each six borrowings, that would raise £1,000, and I do not feel that that would be unreasonable. However, it is unreasonable at public expense to set up yet another bureaucracy that will grow and grow. Therefore, although I embrace the virtues of a public lending right, I find the system set out in the Bill unacceptable.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Although it is a correct principle that one should have royalties on the sale of books, and it is right to encourage an author to be able to obtain the benefit of a public lending right of this kind, the amount of money is so negligible as to be of little benefit.
I understand that 113,000 authors are between them to receive a sum of £600,000, which is less than twice as much as we lose on our catering in the House of Commons. If the figure works out at £5 for an average author, it is hardly worth collecting. The fact that one would have to spend nearly half as much on collecting the money as one would give to the author surely undermines the whole essense of the principle.
What is to be the test? The test put forward by the authors based on the number of times a book is borrowed is the correct one. On the other hand, there is an automatic inbuilt difficulty in that test, because if it is judged on the number of times a book is borrowed, certainly in the case of a novel, it will mean that the popular author will obtain money while the lean author who is not doing so well will be unable to obtain any money.
Furthermore, I understand that school works, the books pupils read to obtain their A-levels, will not qualify because, presumably, they are educational works which may not qualify their authors for the benefit of their authorship. It is absurd to exclude reference books. I am thinking not of the Encyclopaedia Britannica—but of the ordinary run of reference books. They should be included.
We have a dichotomy in the essence of the Bill. It was designed originally to try to give royalties on the sale of books that found their way into libraries. That was an admirable principle, but I am not sure that we should subsidise it. I favour the idea of trying to assist authors who have a fairly lean life and who work hard


to try to produce a great many works of educational reference and other valuable books and who will get little or nothing from this measure.
The man who will get most out of this measure will be the registrar, because he will be paid a salary and he will have an inbuilt pension. He will have a salary, a pension and emoluments far in excess of the figure any author will receive under the scheme.
I wonder whether it would not have been better to try to find a system whereby one paid a small sum on books borrowed in relation to the ordinary run and yet further sums if one wanted to make up somebody's income. Perhaps we should also consider whether there is a way in which we can help the authors of reference books and intellectual works.
This matter has been going on for the past 20 years. Some of my hon. Friends started it with A. P. Herbert. A.P.H. was basically concerned because authors who produced a good turnout of books were worried about income tax. If we improved the tax position of authors so that they could spread their tax payments over a number of years, the successful authors would be much happier and we could then consider ways in which the scheme we are now discussing could provide advantages for the authors of intellectual works and others who suffer lean years with their work.
Whatever is done in this matter seems to be filled with every kind of problem. I hope that a solution will be found, but the present proposal does not seem to be very satisfactory.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I have been very hesitant in my view of this scheme and have been inclined sometimes one way and sometimes the other. Much has depended on to whom I have been listening. When listening to supporters of the scheme, I can see that it is not desirable and when listening to opponents, I see that there is something to be said for it. The difficulty about making a speech while balanced in such a way is that one cannot avoid listening to one's own speech and one tends to vacillate from side to side according to the tenor of one's remarks. It can be rather embarrassing.
It seems rather odd to be passing a Bill which provides for a whole lot of machinery on the clear understanding that none of it is to be activated. It is described as a decision of principle, yet the Bill does not say that there may be a right conferred upon authors, but that there shall be such a right. If we are talking about principle, there is a certain objection in principle to passing a Bill which, if not explicitly mandatory, is certainly implicitly so, with the intention of letting it lie as a dead letter on the statute book.
Will the Secretary of State do as the Bill proposes and prepare a scheme and push it into force to see how it looks—though without any money? One is reminded of the story of the custodians of a mental hospital who constructed a swimming pool and said that if the inmates made good use of it, they would fill it with water.
The scheme provides for payments to be made on the basis of the number of borrowings from specified libraries. Why only specified libraries? The scheme will apply only to books held by publicly maintained libraries. Why not the lot? The answer is to keep down the cost of administration, which is recognised as being absurd.
What about the London Library? Consider the case of someone who writes a worthwhile book—not a "whodunit" but something serious. The borrowings of that book from the public library will not be as high as they would be, for example, from the London Library or from the Bodleian or the university libraries. But the person who has written that work would get nothing, or very little indeed, under the scheme. What is the advantage of that?
Everyone has been declaring an interest, or in some cases an absence of interest. I wrote a legal textbook many years ago. It is out of print now. I have always felt the publishers did not make a sufficiently large print at the time. I would never do it again, even with public lending rights, because there is no profit in writing such books in comparison with the amount of work.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page), before the War I joined in writing with some other undergraduates a book called "Tory


Oxford", which I have always felt was virtually remaindered before it was published. I do not think I have a particularly strong financial interest in the Bill, nor, until some money is poured into the system, would I feel enticed into writing any books in the hope of deriving some profit.
I have referred to the definition of "library" and to the fact that it is only certain selected libraries which are picked out for the operation of the scheme. But, in addition to that, the Bill says that it shall he based on the number of borrowings. If I were to write a book I could boost my income quite substantially. I could take the book out of the library one day, return it the next day, and then borrow it again. Nothing is said about the length of time for which a book is borrowed. One could get one's friends to borrow it, send it back and borrow it again, and each time one would get something. On the other hand, in the unfortunate circumstance of somebody borrowing the book and not taking it back, it would go out of circulation in that library. One knows only too many people who do not so much borrow books as take them. In that sort of case, the wretched author would lose entirely that source of revenue from the scheme.
I do not know whether the Minister has exhausted her right to speak on this Bill but she has not exhausted the interest of the House. If she seeks the leave of the House to speak again, I am sure it will be granted not once but several times. We look forward to hearing from the Minister on many future occasions on this Bill.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Would my hon. and learned Friend try to talk a little mare loudly? He is so quiet that he is almost inaudible, and some hon. Members have dropped off because of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I thought the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) wished to make an intervention. The softer the delivery of the speech, the easier it is for those who occupy the Chair.

Mr. Bell: I am sorry. I did not realise that anyone was listening. I shall try to speak more loudly now that I know of the depth and extent of the interest in the views that I was putting before the House.
I return to the point that, if it is not to happen, what is the point of passing the Bill? I do not know whether the hon. Lady has explained that. I have not heard a satisfactory explanation. Perhaps I might put it to her in this way: "If you do not want the scheme, how can you want it? On the other hand, if you want it, why not have it?" But the idea of approving the principle could be done with a motion. It is not necessary to have a Bill to establish a scheme like this. We decided by a resolution that we thought it a good idea for the proceedings of the House to be broadcast. We could have a resolution saying that a public lending right was a good idea. But if an Act is passed, there should always be the intention to put it into force.
If we are to bring the scheme into force, the idea that we fund it with £1 million is ludicrous. It is too absurd for words. It would be a little like the parking meter system where the operation of the system costs as much as the revenue. The whole of the revenue goes in administration. The administration of this scheme will be very expensive. Every time anyone goes into a public library, the attendant has to make an entry to the effect that a book has been borrowed. I do not know whether the name of the borrower will have to go in, but certainly the fact that it has been borrowed will have to be recorded.
It is all very well to talk about computers. First, they never save money or anything else. One has only to think of the one at Swansea. We all know about that one. It is the best way of losing any sort of documents or particulars that anyone ever devised. As for economy, it costs millions of pounds and employs 6,000 people.
The reason for this is fairly simple. It is not the actual operation of the gadget that is expensive. It is the punching of the cards. Every card which goes back will have to be punched from a record from a library. Bearing in mind that each punching costs one-sixth of a penny, it is obvious that the amount of money which represents the significance of the record will be far less than the cost of making the record. It will be like VAT, which costs so much to collect. What is the point of a scheme which will cost far more to administer than it distributes by way of reward to authors?
Another basic defect in the concept of this scheme is that libraries and all the methods of reproduction have in some way diminished the rewards of writers. Historically, that is not true. It used to be thought, for example, that if football matches were shown on television, the promoters would be deprived of the money paid by spectators. Exactly the opposite happens. People want to go to see events which have the cachet of being broadcast.
A book which is serialised on sound broadcasting or on television does not experience a slump in its sales but the very opposite. There is a great boost to its sales. How many people, for example, will have bought "Oliver Twist" because it was the book of the film? This is what happens.
The library system is not only a magnificent way of disseminating knowledge. I remember the words written above the entrance to the Bodleian Library at Oxford,
Plurimi pertransibunt et multiplex erit scientia.
I have no doubt that that thought was passing through the hon. Lady's mind as I was speaking.
It is the multiplication of knowledge that is the great contribution that libraries make to our society, but as they multiply knowledge, so they multiply the taste and appetite for books. The book-buying public now—which is the real thing—is many times larger than it has ever been. The hon. Lady must have the figures—I do not—but who can doubt that the number of books bought increases every year? And the figure increases every year because people acquire the habit of reading books—people who never read books before. It is libraries such as those set up by the Carnegie bequest in many parts of the Kingdom, and particularly in Scotland, which spread the taste not just for reading but for owning books.
We take it for granted that every class of the community in this country should read books and should buy them, but that is not something to be taken so lightly for granted. I think the hon. Lady might be surprised if she were to conduct an investigation into how common that is in various parts of the world. Even in

the English-speaking world, I think she would find that the United Kingdom, and perhaps—though I am not sure of this—the United States are unique in the extent of book owning.
The proposition that I put to the hon. Lady is that that is due to the extent to which libraries are widespread through those countries and the fact that the habit of borrowing books has become a normal part of life. If that be so—and I am sure that it is—the truth is that the lending of books from public or private libraries is the greatest boon and advantage that can possibly be conferred upon those who write books and wish to make a living from them.
Has the hon. Lady considered the separate but relevant fact that one of the greatest rewards that an author can have financially is that his book should become so well know and well thought of that somebody wishes to make a film of it? He makes a lot of money that way.
Let us suppose that there were no libraries and that an author was hoping to make a living from writing books. The first thing that he would lose would be the assured purchase of books for all the libraries now in existence. Hundreds of copies—probably the first print—are taken up by all the libraries in the United Kingdom—county libraries, borough libraries, and so on. Those purchases are the author's bread and butter, and if there are no libraries, that will go. That is a matter of considerable importance. If there were no libraries, who would buy books? Only a few rather well-off people, because books would be very much more expensive than they are now.
We are being asked to pass this Bill, not as a matter of practical application, but as a matter of principle. Therefore, would it not be a good thing to establish the principle? This should be done in the form of a sound and full argument. The Under-Secretary has not yet established the principle. I do not want her to start from the point of view "I think, therefore I am". That is a dangerous argument in politics. She might disappear in the middle of it, like the Cheshire cat.

Mr. Sproat: Was it not the smile that disappeared rather than the cat itself?

Mr. Bell: No. It was the cat that disappeared and the smile that endured. I


do not wish that fate on the hon. Lady. Obviously, it happened to someone in the Government Lobby earlier in this debate, and one smile is not as good as one vote.
The hon. Lady has not discharged the burden of propounding the principle which she wants asserted and established in this Bill. She must set out to establish that principle, she must define it and prove it by strict and syllogistic logic. I do not want to hear a lot of stuff about A equalling B, and C equalling D, and "verily I say unto you that B equals C". I want it strictly proven.
This Bill is not a practical proposition but a matter of principle and the hon. Lady must show a medieval rigour in putting her case, which we await eagerly. I realise that I am coming between the House and her performance, or rather between the House and the performance of my hon. Friend for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) who will wind up the debate for the Opposition. That is a more acceptable situation to be in. I know that hon. Members are waiting to savour the delights from the Front Beinches when I resume my seat, so I shall not stand for very much longer.

Hon Members: It is good stuff.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friends will note that I said "Not very much longer". I want to help the hon. Lady, but I do no think there is much more assistance which I can give, except to ask her why the Act should not extend to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rees-Davies: There are one or two aspects which my hon. and learned Friend has not yet touched on. I do not know whether this applies in Buckinghamshire, but at present we are having trouble in Kent because we are being deprived of newspapers in our libraries. This is because of stringency in the library service. Some of us have suggested that libraries should cut back on novels in order to secure newspapers and better magazines.
If we took novels out of the terms of this Bill, we could secure an increased amount for everything else in it. Novels could be sold very much more in paper back form, and if they were not included in libraries, they would sell very well. The result would be that more serious

books would get more substantial sum of money and novels could look elsewhere for remuneration. I had gathered that my hon. and learned Friend's general advocacy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has already taken part in the debate. He is now, by way of an intervention, making another speech.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My hon. and learned Friend was on the whole opposed to the general tenor of the Bill, but he was not altogether against the general principle. I was inviting him to find a way in which he could join the fold and be with us in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Bell: I think that I should come as rather a wolf to that fold. Buckinghamshire has gone beyond the position that my hon. and learned Friend's county has reached. We have already cut back on the novels, and I hope that we shall cut back on the newspapers and magazines as well, because we must do something to economise. However, if I went into the sort of detail into which I might be tempted to go on the public sector borrowing requirement, you might feel that I was trespassing outside the bounds of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. and learned Friend is right in this, that we have the economy as the context in which we are debating the Bill. If we are having to cut back on the purchase of books for libraries, for which we are coming under a certain amount of criticism, it seems preposterous to spend £1 million on a half-baked scheme like this. If the hon. Lady has £1 million to spare, I can suggest much better things to do with it—and I do not mean seat belts.

Mr. Jessel: Seat belts could save £60 million.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend must save that speech for another occasion.
The hon. Lady could use the money to buy books. We could even have a paperback Encyclopaedia Britannica or something like that, which I am sure would have increased sales and increase the knowledge of the general body of the public, and therefore increase the purchasing of books by them.
The whole idea of this public subvention in a mixed economy is to prime the pump or have a sort of trigger action, if the hon. Lady wants a trigger action—I have not noticed much of that from her tonight. Rather than having a sort of planning agreement, it would be much better to use the money to buy books, which would help the authors directly.
Alternatively, why not have a list of authors, rather like a party list, and distribute the money to those on it? A small committee could distribute it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With a pin?

Mr. Bell: The Departments have lists of people to go on public bodies. If there were a small remuneration, there would be plenty of ex-Labour politicians—or why not current ones?—who could go in for this patronage, which is already quite widespread.
Although there is no money, there is a Financial Resolution. That is very odd. Are we to understand that the penal clauses would come into operation and that people could be fined for not complying with the Bill, even though there was no money available to them?
I am glad that the result of my eloquence, if I may presume to call it that, has been to bring the Deputy Chief Whip over to my side of the argument in that he now sits on the Opposition Front Bench. I welcome the hon. Gentleman. He is an outstanding example of the spread of culture and the appetite for reading among all sections of the population. We are grateful that the hon. Gentleman is taking such an interest in the progress of the Bill. I should be out of order if I were to repeat the advice that I gave earlier.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman would certainly be out of order, as he is at the moment.

Mr. Bell: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not dream of doing that. I hope that the Deputy Chief Whip will seek to persuade the Minister—I am glad that he is moving to his own Front Bench in order to do so—to make a full reply to this debate—

Mr. G. B. Drayson: My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the penal aspect of the Bill. Has he considered the position of the libraries in

prisons? Will they be making their full contribution to the fund? Are they covered by the Bill?

Mr. Bell: I refer my hon. Friend to the definition of a library in Clause 3. The clause provides that a library.
means any one of a local library authority's collections of works held by them for the purpose of being borrowed by the public".
I do not think that the Prison Commissioners are a library authority.

Mr. Drayson: They should be.

Mr. Bell: The works that they hold are held only for borrowing by what in the Race Relations Act would be called a section of the public.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Be careful.

Mr. Bell: I do not think I shall be prosecuted by referring to a section of the public, but one never knows these days. My considered answer to my hon. Friend is that the prison library is not a library within the definition of the Bill.
If we passed the Bill and did not put any money into it, there would be a considerable danger of people finishing up in prison libraries because they had broken the provisions of the Bill. That is because penal clauses would come into force even though there was no money in it.
I leave the matter to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West and the Minister, but before doing so I make that additional point for the hon. Lady's consideration. Perhaps she will deal with the matter in outline. In any event, the matter can be dealt with in detail on the Financial Resolution. That is a separate debate into which we have not entered. The hon. Lady can tell us in outline at this stage without any breach of order. Is she to set up an organisation and pay it before she pays the authors? If that is the idea, that is not a matter of principle—nor is it a dry scheme, it is an extremely wet scheme. It would merely increase administration costs and not benefit anyone except the administrators.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West is poised, as is the Deputy Chief Whip. I see no reason for them not being called together, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as they are both very slow speakers, but—

12.54. a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: It was obviously in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that the immortal phrase was born—
Do not vote, it only encourages them.
This is a historic occasion. It all began three days before my last birthday on 26th May. I feel a great deal older and wiser now we have reached this historic point.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Cooke: Perhaps it would be easier if I did not give way.
When the debate is eventually printed and when the public lending right scheme, which we all hope will one day be a reality, gets under way, no doubt it will be the most borrowed volume from the shelves of the sample public libraries. My only regret is that I shall have to share my reward, I suppose, with fellow contributors to the debate, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). Perhaps I might add a more serious point here, though I might have made it later. I do not believe that the question of composite authorship is covered by the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
To turn now to the vital detail of the Bill. It provides in Clause 1 that
In accordance with a scheme to be prepared and brought into force by the Secretary of State, there shall be conferred on authors a right, known as 'public lending right '"—
and so on. We must be clear about this. The scheme, which is yet to be prepared, will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before any money can be spent. Exactly how do the Government intend to administer the Bill, which, we hope, will reach the statute book? The scheme, the guts of the whole thing which will put public lending right into action, has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is provided for in Clause 3.
Before taking matters further, I wish to put on record that the debate has been twice adjourned, despite the protests of the Opposition. On the last occasion, we voted against the adjournment of the debate, and the Government had only 30 Members here in support of their Bill

—less than a House. Tonight, the Government attempted to apply the closure, without any consultation with our Front Bench and before we had had a chance to lend our assistance to this measure. That resulted in yet another fiasco.
One is bound to wonder how keen the Government are to get the Bill to the statute book. It would certainly have stood a much better chance if they had managed their affairs with more skill and if they had introduced the Bill with proper notice and reasonable time to discuss it on Second Reading on the first occasion.
Nothing that I shall say tonight is in any way designed to frustrate the progress of the Bill now that we have brought it thus far. Here we are again, with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) sitting beside me, and the House will recall that he was eloquent in support of the Bill on the first occasion. He is, after all, a pioneer in what we seek to put upon the statute book. Indeed, one hon. Member has already paid tribute to him, observing that if he had been longer in office as Minister with responsibility for the arts, the Bill would have been on the statute book long ago. Now, I am speaking from the Opposition Front Bench alongside him, reaffirming our support for public lending right.
I shall not read the sentence from "The Right Approach" because it has been quoted already, but it is there in absolutely clear terms in a small section on the arts, and I think it significant that it is included. We are anxious to get the Bill into Committee and give it a chance of Royal Assent before the Session ends, but I must ask the Government a few questions at this stage, and the answers may help us before we reach Committee.
It is rumoured that there are to be Government amendments in Committee, particularly on the subject of the Lords amendment which altered "books" to "works". It would help the House if the Government declared their intentions on that matter tonight. Is it not a fact anyway that "works" could be limited to books by the scheme which has yet to be produced by the Government? Would it be necessary, in the light of that, for the Government to seek to amend the


Bill in Committee and thus to reduce its chances of getting on the statute book?
There may be other things that the Government, or other Members for that matter, want to do. But, having had this desperately difficult, tortuous passage so far, with a substantial number of Members wishing to see the Bill—after all, it establishes the principle and the framework—on the statute book, perhaps the Government will think again about anything that they might do to impede its progress.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have complained about being asked to agree to the Bill before seeing the scheme. They have a very good point. Authors and many other people are anxious to get the Bill on the statute book, because they feel that, if they do not get it there, framework though it is, this will be another setback, and perhaps a long lasting setback. People know what Parliament can be when it comes to getting round to matters of this kind when there are so many other important matters to be dealt with every day.
In another place grave doubts were expressed about letting the Bill pass without knowing more about the scheme. Many noble Lords were doubtful about the other place and, indeed, also this House having to say yea or nay to the scheme without the chance of amending it. Noble Lords from the Opposition Front Bench and from the Back Benches generally pressed the Minister of State, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to give an undertaking that he would produce a discussion document in advance of the draft scheme. The noble Lord gave an undertaking:
The Consultative Document will be available to anybody who wishes to make comments; and if political Parties wished to make comments, of course they could.
Then comes the important sentence:
It would be in the form of a Green Paper, or something of that kind.
The noble Lord Carrington said:
But presumably there would be no objection to debating the Consultative Document if it was put down in the House."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th April 1976; Vol. 370, c. 89.]
We have more difficult procedures here. Their Lordships seem to manage to talk about what they want fairly easily. It is not so easy here.
The Minister must tell us whether we are to have a Green Paper in advance of the scheme. It must be something of that kind. The Minister of State gave a pledge in the other place, and the Under-Secretary is acting for her noble Friend here. I do not expect the hon. Lady to say that she will get the business managers to agree that time would be given for a debate, but I suggest that she could give us the usual formula about using her best endeavours. I fear that if the scheme is not in quite the right form and does not suit hon. Members, it might be thrown out and we should not get very far.
I have said a lot about that aspect, but I felt that it was important and that I should do so. We are anxious to get the Bill into Committee. We are also concerned that authors and the taxpayer should get value for money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was kind enough to inform the House that I had floated certain ideas at a meeting upstairs. I did not quite say what he said I said, though it is no secret that I have from time to time suggested that there were simpler ways of administering a public lending right and other ways of raising the money than from the Exchequer. What I said upstairs to a large gathering of authors was that there might be a wish to explore that kind of thing in Committee.
I am not advocating officially from the Opposition Dispatch Box any particular alternative. However, I put it to the House that perhaps a great number of hon. Members who have grave doubts about letting the Bill through at all might be much happier if they found, as a result of discussions in Committee, that its scope was widened so that it would be possible to raise the money from other sources and that perhaps it would also be possible to simplify the administration. However, that is a matter for the Committee stage.
That brings me to my conclusion. That is to say to my hon. Friends, some of whom have been most critical about the Bill—and rightly so because we must recognise that it is simply a framework—that perhaps they will, after all, even though severe critics, be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading here. Who


knows? Some of them may find themselves members of the Committee and able to propose amendments along the lines that they have suggested.
Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that my hon. Friends will support us in the Lobby.

1.6 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to speak again in reply to the debate.
I shall not seek to detain the House for any longer than is necessary to deal with the many points raised, as I take the point made by so many Opposition Members that they are anxious to reach a conclusion on the Bill. I am sure, however, that at this stage it is not out of place to say that many hon. Members, as they have revealed in their contributions, are not as aware of the purpose of the Bill as they would like to be.
The Government and, indeed, the official Opposition, believe that authors have a right to revenue from the use of their books—from their books being available to readers. When a book is purchased this right is recognised and revenue accrues to the author, even though it is at a small sum per book. But at present, if the book is purchased for a lending library, the right is acknowledged only on the purchase, even though the book may be available to thousands of users, and this deprives the author of revenue which might otherwise be his or hers. This Bill seeks quite simply to establish the principle that an author has a right to revenue related to the use of his book, even though that use may be through a lending library.
My second main point is that although the principle of the Bill may be simple, it is beyond question that the practical details of how such a scheme may be operated are not. It is for this reason that a group of specialists was set up to work on the scheme and to work out a possible framework. It is also for this reason that the group concluded that the scheme would need some considerable work after the Bill comes into force.
The group concluded that it was impractical to include reference books or other works within the scope of the Bill. I must point out to the several hon. Members who have announced that they are quite sure that some method can be found of including reference books or other works that the working group of experts, which has spent a considerable amount of time on this scheme, did not find a practical basis for extending it in this way. It is for that reason that I am afraid that, despite the pleas of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), the Government will be seeking to remove this amendment to the Bill applying to such works when we reach the Committee stage.
Moreover, it has not escaped my attention that many of those hon. Members who sought to argue that the Bill should be extended to include both reference books and other works arc also the same hon. Members who have bewailed the administrative costs of even the scheme we are putting forward. It seems to me that there is a certain illogicality—dare I say, unreasonableness?—in at one and the same time criticising the administrative costs of what we are proposing and suggesting extensions to the scheme.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are late in the Session. Does the hon. Lady agree that the important thing is to get the Bill on to the statute book? If the Government propose amendments in Committee, they are reducing the chances of the Bill becoming law this Session.

Miss Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, whether the Bill becomes law this Session, in these circumstances, depends as much on himself and his hon. Friends as it does on the Government side of the House. If Opposition Members are sincere in their wish to get the Bill on the statute book, as are we, I am sure that we shall be able to manage it, nevertheless.
The other main argument about the scope of the scheme was raised by both my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), who both queried the omission of commercial and private libraries from this proposal. Here again it was thought impractical to include them if only


because we know little about their detailed operation. What we do know leads us to the conclusion that they differ so much even from one another, that no single scheme could properly be devised to cover them all.
The Bill provides for what is within the range of technical practicability and reasonable expenditure. The Government view is that if it later becomes practicable and viable to contemplate extensions, the right course would be further specific legislation at that time.
I turn now to some further points about the Bill as it stands. Many hon. Members have regretted the smallness of the fund and the smallness of the likely payment to authors. But, again, what is important is the establishment of the principle. We expect that the amount taken up by administration will fall after the inevitably high expense of first starting the scheme. We are attempting to keep the scheme as simple as possible. I do not, however, believe that to exclude these costs from the central fund, as suggested by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), is the right way to keep them under control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham West also suggested that the registrar's salary would be additional to the cited costs. That is incorrect. The registrar will not be paid directly from the fund, but the amount of his salary is included in the total amount of the scheme and will be deducted from the money available to be put into the fund, as shown in the last four lines of Clause 2(2). When the matter of the scale of payments to authors was discussed, several hon. Members suggested a tapering scale for payments so that the most popular authors did not scoop the pool. That is really a matter for detailed consideration of the scheme but I would say to those hon. Members that if, say, the first 500 loans of a book attracted payments at a certain level, and the next 500 also attracted a payment, but at a lower level, the principle of some reimbursement per loan would be preserved while still protecting the rights of less popular authors.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is there not a distinction between the extent of the right and the way the right is exercised? The

vast majority of authors would be very happy to see their right exercised in this particular way in order that the less well off authors should benefit.

Miss Jackson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in his argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) queried whether the right should be capable of being assigned and argued that it should not be assigned. I see no compelling reason for departing from the example of copyright in these circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) and the hon. Member for Chelmsford suggested that there ought to be a fixed time limit for the scheme's introduction. All the clause does is to require that the scheme is presented as soon as may be after the Act comes into force. But, as I made clear in my opening speech several months ago, and indeed tonight, the scheme is dependent on resources becoming available for implementation and on the technical problems which will be involved in working out the scheme. There will have to be consultation with library authorities and other interests, and my noble Friend Lord Donaldson has promised that a consultative document will be published, and we stand by that promise. All these things will take place in the future when it is likely a date is set for the implementation of the scheme.

Mr. Robert Cooke: We are to get a Green Paper in advance of the draft scheme? It is clear that the draft scheme will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before any money can be spent. Is that clear?

Miss Jackson: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I was just coming to that point. A consultative document will be issued before the draft scheme is put before Parliament, and the scheme will have to be put before Parliament. Some money will have to be expended. Once it is known that there is the possibility of bringing the scheme into operation, the registrar will have to be appointed and work will have to go forward to prepare the draft scheme before the consultative document is produced and put before Parliament. What the hon. Gentleman is


asking is that we should have the draft scheme before we have the means of preparing the draft scheme. The answer to him is that only sufficient moneys to appoint the registrar and prepare the draft scheme to be put before Parliament will be expended.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The registrar's duty is concerned with registration. All the work in connection with the scheme is being carried out in the Department. Why cannot the scheme be produced by the Department without touching the money in the Bill at all?

Miss Jackson: We hope to do as much of the work as possible in the Department before the registrar is appointed, but we do not think it would be wise to say that there will be no work to be done after that and therefore to give the total assurance the hon. Member seeks.
Nor do we believe, to return to my point about the time scale, that it will assist the success of this scheme to be forced to present it to Parliament before it can be properly worked out, as might be the case if we were to do as the hon. Member for Chelmsford suggested and present it after a fixed time.
The Hon. Member for Bristol, West also asked about composite authorship. That is not covered specifically in the Bill and is a point to be dealt with in discussion of the scheme. That perhaps

is something that we can take up in Committee.

The question of reimbursement of the costs of libraries and other decisions taken by the registrar was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West, who said that there was no mechanism for appeals against decisions of the registrar, either on the right or on the costs of the scheme. There is no specific provision for appeals to the courts, but since the Bill imposes specific duties on the registrar, an aggrieved party will have the ordinary remedies in the courts for failure of such persons to perform a duty.

I have said that the position of resources is uncertain and we do not yet know when the resources will be made available. But we believe that establishing this right is an important step forward in itself, and whatever work can be done on preparation, within the constraints of resources, will continue.

This has been a long debate, on all the evenings on which we have discussed the Bill and down the years. I hope that we can conclude it tonight and give the Bill a Second Reading and accept the principle of the scheme for which the fight has been long and hard, not only in this House but elsewhere.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 0.

Division No. 324.]
AYES
[1.17 a.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Miscampbell, Norman


Atkinson, Norman
Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, Kenneth
Fell, Anthony
Montgomery, Fergus


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenehawe)


Bates, Alf
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Beith, A. J.
Fry, Peter
Oakes, Gordon


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gilbert, Dr John
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Palmer, Arthur


Bottomley, Peter
Graham, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hannam, John
Perry, Ernest


Budgen, Nick
Harper, Joseph
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Raison, Timothy


Channon, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Horam, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Janner, Greville
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roper, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jessel, Toby
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ryman, John


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted
Shepherd, Colin


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur
Madden, Max
Sinclair, Sir George


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Magee, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, J. D.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Snape, Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Dunnelt, Jack
Mayhew, Patrick
Strang, Gavin




Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wiggin, Jerry



Thompson, George
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec
Mr. David Stoddart and


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. A. W. Stallard.


Ward, Michael






NOES


NIL



TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Iain Sproat and




Mr. Roger Moate.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide public lending right for authors, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) payments out of money provided by Parliament to and in respect of a Registrar of Public Lending Right, by way of remuneration, allowances and superannuation benefits;
(b) payments out of money so provided into a Central Fund (from which there would be made payments in respect of public lending right and other payments for purposes of the Act and any scheme having effect under it) but so that, in respect of the Fund's liabilities of any financial year, the total of such payments is not to exceed £1 million less the total of sums paid in that year under paragraph (a) above;
(c) power for the Secretary of State to increase the limit in paragraph (b) above by order made with Treasury consent; and
(d) payments into the Consolidated Fund—[Mr. John Ellis.]

ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25th June] proposed on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Debate further adjourned till this day.

DENTAL CARE (HANDICAPPED PERSONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

1.28 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I present to the House a scandal—an appalling state of affairs and neglect and indifference to the pain and suffering of the weakest sector of Britain's population—the mentally and physically handicapped—comparable to the inhumanity of the last century when the high walls of lunatic asylums out of sight to the ordinary citizen shrouded the eyes from scenes of intolerable squalor and the ears from the animal cries of pain and despair that brought into the English language the word "Bedlam".
I plead guilty too. I thought that there was little about the NHS services, the delivery of health care and treatment and the manifold problems this presents that I did not know.
It is only in these last few months that I have discovered a state of affairs in dentistry which shows that after 25 years of a comprehensive dental service, it has failed to cover those for whom a caring and compassionate society should have given the highest priority—those unable to care for themselves without our help.
I welcome the Minister's presence tonight. If there is one person who knows more about the chronic sick and disabled than anyone else in the country, it is my hon. Friend the Minister who is concerned with the disabled. In appealing to him tonight I know that I am pushing at quite an open door, but unless he can get some degree of urgency into the solution of these problems, my own Government will attract an odium in respect of this neglect that will outweigh the praise


that it—and especially my hon. Friend the Minister—deserve for the progress made in other fields.
The fact is that the more severe the handicap, the more difficult it is to get dental treatment. The pain of the mentally handicapped can go on and on and on. I quote from an article in New Society:
Two years ago in Corby, an elderly mother pushed her 20 year old, in his wheelchair, from one dental practice to another. She was searching for dental treatment for his painfully abcessed tooth. Having failed to get an appointment, she came in tears to our school mobile dental van to ask for help. This was not a case of man's inhumanity to man. The simple fact was that every surgery in Corby, including the recently built health clinic, was on a first floor—up a long flight of steps and inaccessible to wheelchair users, a fact that hardly meets the requirements of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970.
In the ultimate limbo are the housebound handicapped—for example, a person with an advanced case of multiple sclerosis who can be treated only at home.
Theoretically, one of the five categories of NHS dental treatment should cover the handicapped. First, there is the general dental practitioner, but in practice there is no time for him to work for the handicapped, and it is difficult, in the circumstances of ordinary dental practice, to be able to cope with those who are mentally handicapped. At the end of a very full and hard day's work, only a very few dedicated dentists are prepared to go out to those who are housebound.
Secondly, there are the hospitals, but in practice they do very little else for the mentally or physically handicapped than straightforward extractions under anaesthetic.
The third possibility is a subnormality hospital which will give fillings and also other treatment under anaesthesia, but only for its own patients—Only those who are in the institution are covered for dental treatment.
Fourthly, there are the dental hospitals, but in practice there is a geographical handicap, because the more remote a dental hospital, the more difficult it is to treat this very worthy section of our community.
Finally, there is the Community Dental Service, and it is in this area that I see most hope for the future. Here I

quote again from the article in New Society:
Northamptonshire began in 1973 a service that crossed the hospital community boundary in what we believe to be a unique way. A team, consisting of one of us as dental surgeon, a dental hygienist and a dental nurse, was appointed jointly by the local authority and the hospital service to provide dental treatment for all handicapped children. The service was based at the Princess Marina Subnormality Hospital, where a surgery was provided. The special schools in the county were catered for with a mobile dental van.
I commend to my hon. Friend the use of these vans in which further surgical treatment can be carried out. Children were brought to the hospital for treatment, the article points out, under general anaesthesia by the same team. The article goes on to state that
The handicapped were of all types—physical, sensory, mental and emotional. After April 1974, when reorganisation of health services was undertaken, the adult handicapped were included in the project.
This sets a pattern, and the Government should now seek to take positive action in this direction.
I am well aware of the present financial difficulties, and I am not even asking the Government to make this service mandatory for the Community Dental Service to treat the handicapped now. But I am demanding that area dental officers who, after considering all their needs and resources, wish to treat the adult handicapped shall be permitted to do so. If this means secondary legislation, let this House see it.
The fact that at present they are not allowed by law to extend this help is leaving clinics unused in some areas, and dentists are standing idle at times when school children are not around. In the case of dentists on handicapped children in day centres, the children go home at 3 p.m., leaving dental teams and surgeries unoccupied until 5 p.m. That is a tremendous waste of resources at a time when the NHS is looking for more and more resources.
I put this specific question to my hon. Friend. If there is still delay in reaching a decision, will my hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to put this problem to his Senior Policy Adviser in the so-called "think tank"? Then, perhaps, we might get some more direct opinion and the facts weighed up so that the Government might reach a speedy conclusion.
I commend dentists such as Charles Curry of Northampton, whose services I have been quoting, and also the team of A.S.T. Franks of Birmingham, A. Crawford MacFarlane of Bedford, Deirdre Pool and G. B. Winter of London, who together have formed a new British Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped. I ask my hon. Friend to look at this organisation with a view to giving the kind of support from the Government that he has already done for the deafened and other sections of the disabled community.
I conclude my plea with a moving quotation which ends the article from which I have taken much of my information, and my hon. Friend knows even better than I do the colleague who provided me with this information. It reads:
What sort of motivation would drive anyone to work in a confined caravan, with children often doubly incontinent, frequently sick, with nasal discharges and little means of communication? … Is it religious motivation—a desire for some great reward in the next world?
No, one relates to a need. The handicapped child responds—honestly, and brutally truthfully. Only a mongol child, awake all night with toothache, would bestow in gratitude after the tooth was extracted the final, generous accolade of a bloodstained kiss.
I hope that this plea will not be unregarded, and I look for speedy action from my hon. Friend in persuading his Department to take the necessary steps. This will not cost a lot of money. It can be done, and the resources are there. It will not require a lot of fresh cash, contrary to what people sometimes think, and, because this area is a blot on a very good record, I hope that it will be remedied speedily.

1.38 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) for raising this important subject for debate. The House as a whole is well aware of the deeply humane and abiding concern for the welfare of handicapped people which has prompted him to do so. My right hon. Friend and I have read with considerable interest the report, "A Challenge for Change in the Dental Services", which was prepared by a working party under my hon. Friend's chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend and

the working party on such a thorough, stimulating and comprehensive review.
The Pavitt Report covers the whole range of dental services and makes more than 30 recommendations to my Department, some of them far reaching, about the organisation of dental services. We are currently considering the implications of these recommendations. While this is proceeding, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feels that it would be premature to single out and react to any specific recommendation in advance of the Department's conclusions on the report as a whole. As my hon. Friend will confirm, however, I have twice discussed with him the suggestion in the working party's report of an extension to include disabled people in the scope of the Community Dental Service at present provided by area health authorities. My hon. Friend knows how happy it would make me if I were immediately able to accede to his suggestion.
The primary function of the Community Dental Service is to fulfil the statutory duty laid on my right hon. Friend the Secreeary of State and exercised on his behalf by area health authorities to make provision for the dental inspection and treatment of children at maintained schools. This work forms by far the major part of the duties of clinical dental staff employed by area health authorities. Yet, over the country as a whole, the resources of the Community Dental Service do not enable that statutory duty to be fully discharged.
The unmet needs of children for dental treatment were emphasised in the report of a survey of the dental condition of a representative sample of children of compulsory school age which was published last year. The survey was carried out for my Department and the Welsh Office by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
Among other alarming statistics, that showed that about 90 per cent. of the children surveyed needed dental attention of some kind, and that about two-thirds of them needed treatment for dental decay. By the age of 15, one-third of the sample had lost at least one permanent tooth, and nearly one-tenth had list at least four permanent teeth because of dental decay. Such teeth are, of course, lost for ever, and cannot be replaced except on a denture.
To deal with that situation, in addition to the more extensive facilities of the general dental services, which I hope to mention later, the school dental service in England has the equivalent of only about 1,400 full-time clinical dental officers, who in 1974 inspected about 4·7 million and treated about 1·3 million of about 8·5 million children in maintained schools in England. In addition, area health authorities continue the arrangements made before National Health Service reorganisation by the former local health authorities for the dental treatment of pre-school children and nursing and expectant mothers.
However, these groups occupy only a small fraction of the time of the authorities' community dental staff. To extend those services to other groups, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would need to make a specific direction to the health authorities under the National Health Service Acts. I am sure the House will recognise that it would be difficult for him to do so when the limited resources of these services are not meeting existing statutory obligations.

Mr. Pavitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that if that were made permissive and not mandatory the position would be the same as it is now? If they did not wish to carry out those arrangements they would not need to do so, but if they wished to do so they would have the necessary facilities.

Mr. Morris: I am particularly mindful of the point made by my hon. Friend. When we met we discussed the question of considering the recommendations of the Pavitt Report, especially those that relate to the problem of handicapped people. My hon. Friend can be assured that the point he is making is well understood in the Department and is being considered sympathetically. I said that it would be a source of considerable happiness to me if I could say immediately that I accede to his suggestion. I shall do everything I can to help, and I will keep all that my hon. Friend has said tonight very much in mind.
Dental health in later life is impossible if the foundation is not laid in childhood. As even the few figures I have quoted from the recent survey showed so strikingly, the nation's children are far from

achieving this ideal. We must also consider the possibility that recommendations affecting the present child dental services may be made by two committees whose reports are now awaited These are the Child Health Services Committee under Professor Court, and the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee of this House, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North East (Mrs. Short). It would be wrong to disregard the likelihood that one or other of these bodies will make recommendations affecting the community dental services, with the purpose of raising the admittedly deplorable dental standard of our children.
There are various reasons for the present staffing levels in the school dental service. Not all of these are financial, although I recognise the pressure on the financial resources of area health authorities for health services of all kinds. There is also a manpower problem in this service, although there is some hope of improvement from the continuing and welcome rise in the number of dentists on the Dental Register following the expansion of the dental schools.
I am in total agreement with my hon. Friend in his concern to emphasise the importance of dental care of disabled people.
All sections of the community, whether adults or children, handicapped or not, are eligible for treatment in the general dental services of the National Health Service, in which most people are accustomed to receiving dental treatment and in which some 80 per cent. of practising dentists are engaged. In England alone, well over 11,000 dentists take part in the general dental services. Both their numbers and the number of courses of treatment they provide continue to rise steadily.
A proportion of children who are inspected in the school dental service have always obtained treatment in the general dental services. The children's survey I have mentioned found that by the age of 14 about half the children in the sample had been treated only in the general dental services, about a quarter only in the school dental services and the remaining quarter in both. This is not surprising when one considers the


great difference in the numbers of dentists engaged in the two services. However, I have quoted this information to illustrate the pervasive nature of the general dental services and the extent to which they cater for all sections of the community.
I emphasise at this point that handicapped children are eligible for treatment in the community services for as long as they remain at school, and I am glad to learn that many area health authorities make special provision for them.
We must bear in mind that there are more than 1,250,000 severely disabled people in this country with varying degrees of disability. Not all of them have dental problems. But where such problems exist the hospital dental service provides consultant advice and treatment for cases of special difficulty referred by general dental practitioners.
One particular problem that faces many disabled people is mobility. Nobody appreciates this more than my hon. Friend. Many disabled people are unable to get out of their own homes, and many more are restricted in the places to which they can go by obstacles such as stairs and narrow doorways.
Of particular interest to the handicapped, therefore, is the provision in the general dental services for dentists to visit patients in their own homes, up to five miles from the surgery, if the patient's condition so requires. This provision, which can be of great value to disabled people, is not widely known, and I welcome this opportunity to draw public attention to it. Where any necessary dental treatment cannot be carried out at home the ambulance authority is required to provide or arrange for suitable transport, if the patient is considered medically unfit or unable to travel by any other means.
I am sure that area health authorities and family practitioner committees will be glad to help any patients who may be having difficulty for any reason in obtaining treatment in the general dental services. I shall, of course, consider any specific cases of urgent need both speedily and sympathetically. I know that my hon. Friend will let me have any firm evidence of shortcomings in the present arrangements which result in any

particular group of handicapped or disabled people being unable to obtain treatment in the general dental services.
There is no escaping my right hon. Friend's duty, laid on him by Parliament, to provide an inspection and treatment service for children in maintained schools. For the time being, any improvement in the resources of these services must be used to benefit children, whose dental health, as I have explained, determines the dental health of the population in later life. My right hon. Friend must also have regard to future demands which may be made on these services by the recommendations of forthcoming reports, in the one case by a committee reporting directly to him and in the other by a Committee of this House.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of this matter being considered by the Prime Minister's special policy advisers. As I know my hon. Friend appreciates, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister takes a sincere and sustained personal interest in the problems of disabled people. I am sure that no action on my part will be necessary to draw this debate to his attention.
Some of the patients mentioned in the article to which my hon. Friend referred were treated at a hospital for the mentally handicapped and others in a mobile surgery attached to the hospital. It seems that the adult handicapped were treated as patients of the hospital service, not of the Community Dental Service. We understand that the hospital dental officer mentioned in the article also undertook part-time work in the Community Dental Service, and in this capacity treated child patients from special schools as, of course, he was fully entitled to do.
The article is concerned partly with pre-reorganisation conditions, under which the Community Dental Service was the concern of local health and local education authorities and hospital services were managed by regional hospital boards and hospital management committees. Where such schemes are justified by local circumstances they may be facilitated by the reorganisation of the National Health Service, under which the hospital and community services are managed by the same authorities with the aim of integrating previously separate services. It does not follow, however, that it would be


practicable at present to expand the Community Dental Service, provided primarily for schoolchildren, to include groups of adult patients.
My hon. Friend made a very moving reference to what was said in the article. He can be assured that I am giving it extremely careful attention.
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's reasons for initiating this debate. I hope that my remarks have helped to assure him that facilities are available in the National Health Service for treating the people with whom he and I are so concerned. As my right hon. Friend said in his letter to my hon. Friend on 10th August, the Department will continue its

consideration of the implications of my hon. Friend's recommendations in the light of the needs of particular sections of the community and the financial and manpower resources for dealing with them.
What my hon. Friend has said tonight about the special problems of the handicapped will be kept particularly in mind. We shall be in further touch with my hon. Friend as soon as possible about the recommendations in the report that bears his name.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.